[Senate Hearing 114-100]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-100
THREE YEARS LATER: ARE WE ANY CLOSER
TO A NATIONWIDE PUBLIC SAFETY
WIRELESS BROADBAND NETWORK?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 11, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-368 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
MARCO RUBIO, Florida CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DEAN HELLER, Nevada JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY PETERS, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana
David Schwietert, Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, General Counsel
Jason Van Beek, Deputy General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Clint Odom, Democratic General Counsel and Policy Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 11, 2015................................... 1
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Statement of Senator Ayotte...................................... 92
Statement of Senator Booker...................................... 95
Article dated February 9, 2015 by Lynda Cohen of
AtlanticCity.com entitled ``Atlantic City to lead way with
broadband network for public safety''...................... 95
Statement of Senator Manchin..................................... 98
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 100
Statement of Senator Fischer..................................... 103
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 105
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 108
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 110
Statement of Senator Daines...................................... 111
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 114
Statement of Senator Udall....................................... 115
Statement of Senator Gardner..................................... 117
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 119
Witnesses
Hon. Bruce H. Andrews, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
Commerce....................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Chief G. Keith Bryant, President and Chairman of the Board,
International Association Of Fire Chiefs....................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Mark L. Goldstein, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,
Government Accountability Office............................... 13
U.S. Government Accountability Office, ``Public Safety
Communications: Preliminary Information on FirstNet's
Efforts to Establish a Nationwide Broadband Network''...... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Susan Swenson, Chairwoman, First Responder Network Authority
(FirstNet)..................................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
FirstNet, U.S. Department of Commerce, FY 2014: Annual Report
to Congress................................................ 35
Hon. Todd J. Zinser, Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Commerce....................................................... 79
Prepared statement........................................... 80
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Bruce H. Andrews
by:
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 123
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 123
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 127
Response to written question submitted to Mark L. Goldstein by:
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 128
Response to written questions submitted to Susan Swenson by:
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 128
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 130
Hon. Cory Gardner............................................ 131
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 134
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 135
Hon. Cory Booker............................................. 136
Response to written question submitted to Hon. Todd J. Zinser by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 138
THREE YEARS LATER: ARE WE ANY CLOSER
TO A NATIONWIDE PUBLIC SAFETY
WIRELESS BROADBAND NETWORK?
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Nelson, Ayotte,
Booker, Manchin, Peters, Fischer, Blumenthal, Cantwell, Wicker,
Daines, Klobuchar, Udall, Gardner, and Markey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
The Chairman. This hearing will come to order.
We convene this morning to conduct oversight of the First
Responder Network Authority, also known as FirstNet. In 2012,
Congress established FirstNet with a mandate to deploy an
interoperable nationwide wireless broadband network for
America's first responders. Three years later, our committee is
revisiting this issue for the first time since we passed the
Spectrum Act. Today's hearing will examine the progress and
challenges FirstNet is encountering as it moves forward with
the important mission of building a twenty-first century
communications platform for our country's emergency personnel.
The title of this hearing asks whether we are any closer
today to having this twenty-first century public safety
network. Of course, in a literal sense, we are. The Spectrum
Act was enacted; FirstNet has been stood up; consultations with
the states have begun; and FirstNet is on the verge of
releasing its highly anticipated Draft Request for Proposals.
But in other ways, we are still a very long way away from
having an interoperable public safety network. There are a
great many things that can go terribly wrong unless good
decisions are made right now. For example, FirstNet's
forthcoming RFP will give us a sense of whether a network can
be built to meet the needs and expectation of a diverse
audience of emergency responders in a cost-effective way that
secures FirstNet for future generations. FirstNet must work
diligently to make itself a self-funding entity because,
frankly, we are not in a budget environment that can easily
tolerate spending more than the $7 billion taxpayer dollars
that has already been committed to the network. We are also
confronted with many pressing and unanswered questions due to
the complexity of establishing a new communications system.
Stakeholders, including many in my home state of South
Dakota, have questions about what FirstNet will mean for them.
There are legitimate concerns about how much network access
will cost local police and fire departments who are already
dealing with constrained budgets. And, if the network is
competitive from a cost perspective, many wonder whether it
will be appreciably better than what first responders currently
use. I know FirstNet is aware of these issues and I encourage
the organization to be sensitive to the unique challenges of
local communities.
Last year, I asked GAO to examine FirstNet and its progress
in building the network. In just a few minutes, we will hear
from Mr. Goldstein about GAO's findings and the concerns that
they raise.
Ms. Swenson, I hope and ask that FirstNet will take this
constructive criticism seriously and will improve its approach
to building the network. Specifically, I urge FirstNet to more
fully assess the risk it may face in pursuing its laudable
objectives. I also ask FirstNet to implement a detailed data
analysis plan that builds upon the valuable lessons learned
from the early builder projects.
I share GAO's view that, without such a plan, FirstNet
might not take full advantage of the sizable Federal investment
that has already been made in these Early Builder projects.
The Commerce Department's Inspector General also recently
released a report on FirstNet that raised several issues
concerning FirstNet's ethics and procurement practices. I look
forward to hearing what lessons FirstNet has learned from this
report and whether the IG's findings have been fully addressed.
The Department of Commerce also finds itself at a crucial
stage of this process. The Department should ask itself whether
it is being the best partner it can be to FirstNet in
facilitating development of a public safety network that makes
us all more secure. FirstNet's unique position as an
independent authority within the Department comes with some
risk. So much so, that one commentator recently asked whether
FirstNet is on the path to becoming the next Healthcare.gov,
the Obamacare website best known for its disastrous rollout
thanks to the mismanagement, only the challenge of setting up
this network is arguably many times greater. I strongly
encourage the Department to do everything it can to learn from
the many mistakes of Healthcare.gov.
FirstNet itself also has questions it will need to answer
for this endeavor to be successful. For instance, to what
degree will emergency responders wish to join a network
affiliated with the Federal Government? What is the value to
wireless carriers of secondary network access when public
safety has priority access? Who exactly will be permitted to
use the public safety network?
As this committee proceeds with oversight of FirstNet, I
will focus particularly on whether a high quality and useful
network can be offered to first responders in rural America.
FirstNet will be a failure if it leaves large pockets of rural
America uncovered or served by second-rate solutions.
We have an experienced and knowledgeable panel with us
today, and I expect their testimony will provide the Committee
with important insight into the issues that I raised. And I
want to yield now to my distinguished Ranking Member of this
Committee, the Senator from Florida, Senator Nelson, for his
opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I know the Committee members
would like to hear my dulcet tones but I would prefer to hear
the witnesses. And so, I will enter my remarks for the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator from Florida
Thank you Chairman Thune for holding this hearing today on the
ongoing work of FirstNet.
Just over three years ago, we took the monumental step of passing
legislation to create a first of its kind nationwide wireless broadband
network for first responders. The need for that network had been
evident for over a decade. And a strong bipartisan coalition came
together in the Senate--in fact, in this very committee, led by former
Senators Rockefeller and Hutchison--to respond to that need.
We sought to give our Nation's first responders--who put their
lives on the line each and every day--the tools they need to
communicate effectively during emergencies.
I am proud to have been an early supporter of the legislation that
eventually created FirstNet. It represented a sea change in our
Nation's approach to public safety communications. It looked to the
future. I well remember testimony in this committee from the New York
City Police Commissioner that the average 16-year-old had more
communications capability in a smartphone than a police officer had in
a police radio.
That is unacceptable. FirstNet will address that disparity.
We knew the mission we gave FirstNet would not be easy--but the
stakes of inaction were too high. We tasked FirstNet with creating--
effectively from scratch--a nationwide interoperable network devoted to
the needs of the public safety community. FirstNet is a unique hybrid:
Congress asked the FirstNet board to think like an entrepreneur, with a
limited budget, and to launch a startup enterprise within the confines
of the Federal Government--a monumental task.
The fact that the FirstNet board was not named until August 2012
and had no employees makes what FirstNet has accomplished to date that
much more impressive.
Of course, in launching FirstNet with the urgency the legislation
gave it, there have been a few bumps along the way. Both the Commerce
Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have
reviewed FirstNet's work and found concerns that should be addressed.
It's my understanding that FirstNet and the Department of Commerce have
taken steps to remedy those concerns.
I am confident that FirstNet's board and executive leadership team
will redouble their efforts to carefully abide by all applicable rules
and regulations going forward and refine their operations, where it
makes sense, to incorporate GAO's suggestions. This is even more
important given the limited Federal funds for this critical effort. We
must always guard against waste, fraud, and abuse in all programs.
In the end, we cannot lose sight of what brought Congress to create
FirstNet three years ago--our nation's first responders deserve an
advanced nationwide interoperable wireless broadband network to help
them do their jobs to protect us all.
I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the Committee
today and for their thoughtful comments on FirstNet and its work. I
look forward to hearing your testimony.
The Chairman. Very good.
Well, we will get underway. And I want to start by
introducing our distinguishing panel today. First, we have with
us Mr. Bruce Andrews. He serves as Deputy Secretary with the
Department of Commerce.
He will be followed by Mr. Keith Bryant. Mr. Bryant serves
as the Fire Chief for the Oklahoma City Fire Department and as
the President and Chairman of the Board at the International
Association of Fire Chiefs.
Mr. Mark Goldstein. Mr. Goldstein serves as the Director of
Physical Infrastructure issues at the Government Accountability
Office, referenced earlier.
Mr. Susan Swenson. Ms. Swenson serves as the Chairwoman of
the First Responder Network Authority, also known as FirstNet.
And finally, Mr. Todd Zinser. Mr. Zinser serves as
Inspector General to the Department of Commerce.
So we will start on my left and your right with Mr. Andrews
and proceed. And, if you can, keep your comments confined as
closely to 5 minutes as possible and then we'll proceed with
questions.
Mr. Andrews, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE H. ANDREWS, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Andrews. Good morning, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member
Nelson and member of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me
here today to testify.
I feel a special affinity for FirstNet because I actually
worked on the staff of this Committee when Senator Rockefeller
and Senator Hutchison originally conceived of FirstNet. And, as
we all know, this mission arose as a result in the wake of the
9/11 attacks, when the work of our brave first responders was
seriously impaired by the problems with communications. We at
the Department are proud of our active role in helping to stand
up and support this important program. This is a difficult
mission, but we are confident that FirstNet is making strong
progress towards meeting its goals.
A nationwide first responder network, a key recommendation
of the 9/11 Commission, will enhance public safety
communications across agencies and jurisdictions. Congress
established FirstNet as an independent authority within the
Department's National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, NTIA, to develop and maintain this network.
FirstNet is a unique Federal entity and one of the most
significant initiatives in the Department's portfolio. It is a
startup with the challenges of standing up a self-sustaining
world-class network within the applicable rules and regulations
of the Federal Government. Suffice it to say, that has it
challenges.
The Department actively supports and oversees FirstNet.
Senior leadership from the Department, NTIA, and FirstNet meet
on a regular basis to discuss the status of FirstNet's project,
milestones, and potential risks. Now that FirstNet is maturing,
it depends less on our staff and its day-to-day activities.
However, we continue to offer support and guidance to FirstNet
and its strategic development.
Secretary Pritzker and I are personally engaged on
FirstNet, and she has leveraged her experience in creating and
running companies to help FirstNet. For example, we led a
collaborative process through which FirstNet developed a
Strategic Roadmap and cost model validated by outside
independent experts.
The Department provides certain legal, procurement, human
resources, and administrative support to FirstNet, where it
does not otherwise have its own resources or direct authority.
In doing so, we seek to streamline and expedite Federal
processes.
NTIA works with FirstNet on statutory compliance, internal
controls, financial management systems, and annual independent
audit. NTIA also administers the state and local Implementation
Grant program, which supports consultations with state,
regional, tribal, and local jurisdictions.
In December, the Department's Inspector General issued an
audit report regarding the management of certain FirstNet
disclosure reports and the monitoring of certain FirstNet
contracts. The Department appreciated the Inspector General's
efforts and takes these matters seriously. We concurred with
the Inspector General's recommendations and have taken a number
of steps to address them. It is important to emphasize that the
report focused on FirstNet's early operations and to highlight
the Department's full efforts on these matters.
As Congress recognized, FirstNet needs public and private
sector board members with deep technical expertise and
experience in wireless broadband communications. However, to
get such private sector board members, it was likely that they
would retain interest and affiliations with the industry thus
creating a need to consider carefully potential conflicts of
interest. The Department anticipated and addressed this issue
through a robust ethics program that worked closely with
FirstNet board members to counsel them regarding their
employment and financial interest even before they entered
government service.
Although, some administrative requirements may not have
been fulfilled, board members made the necessary material
disclosures. Notably the Inspector General's report did not
identify any violations of conflict of interest laws or
circumstances that affected FirstNet decisionmaking. It is also
important to note that the early FirstNet contracts resulted in
valuable work product that has been critical to the rapid
establishment of this organization; and to your point, Senator,
earlier about getting this stood up as quickly as we can.
To be clear, administrative errors were made and the
Department takes those mistakes seriously. For example, we are
implementing increased review of financial disclosure reports,
increasing the level of review of potential conflicts of
interests arising from acquisitions, and working to ensure that
employees receive appropriate ethics training.
FirstNet has grown significantly and is now in a stronger
position to exercise its own governance and oversight to
provide clear direction and structure for the organization. I
also think it is important that we emphasize our appreciation
to the private sector board members. These private citizens are
making significant sacrifices for an important goal in trying
to do it the right way.
FirstNet has made strong progress. It is achieving its
milestones according to this strategic roadmap related to state
consultations, draft requests for network proposals and public
notice and comment. In addition, FirstNet is now fully funded
due to the proceeds from the FCC's recent auction. This coming
year will be critical as FirstNet transitions to a new phase
focused on developing and deploying its network. To be clear,
we understand the mission will not be fulfilled quickly. We
want FirstNet to set ambitious but realistic timeframes and
deadlines. And we understand that some internal deadlines have
not and will not be met. None of that undermines the hard work
being performed by this terrific team in place at FirstNet.
Creating a multibillion dollar, public safety wireless
network is a major undertaking. We take our responsibility for
this project very seriously and we will continue to help ensure
that FirstNet succeeds in its important mission.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss FirstNet's
progress and challenges. And, as you can see, FirstNet is
making strong progress toward its goals. I appreciate the
Committee's time and welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrews follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce H. Andrews, Deputy Secretary,
U.S. Department of Commerce
Good morning Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and Members of
the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on the First
Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) and its progress and challenges
in establishing a public safety broadband network. I feel a special
affinity for FirstNet because I worked on the staff of this Committee
when Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison originally conceived of
FirstNet and drafted the original authorizing legislation.
As we all know, the mission of FirstNet arose in the wake of the 9/
11 attacks, when the work of our brave first responders was seriously
impaired by problems with communications. We at the Department of
Commerce (Department) are proud of our role in helping to stand up this
important program, and the Department plays an active role in
overseeing and supporting FirstNet. This is a difficult mission, but we
are confident that FirstNet is making strong progress towards meeting
its goals.
FirstNet's Mission and Structure
In 2012, Congress passed legislation as part of the Middle Class
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act (Act) calling for the construction of a
nationwide, interoperable wireless broadband network for public safety
first responders. This network, a key recommendation of the 9/11
Commission, will allow police officers, fire fighters, emergency
medical service professionals, and other public safety officials to
communicate with each other across agencies and jurisdictions. The Act
established FirstNet as an independent authority within the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which is part
of the Department, to develop, operate, and maintain the much-needed
public safety wireless broadband network.
FirstNet is headed by a 15-member Board responsible for making
strategic decisions about FirstNet's operations. The U.S. Attorney
General, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security serve as ex-officio
members of the FirstNet Board. In addition, the Secretary of Commerce
appoints 12 non-permanent members of the FirstNet Board, with a
statutory requirement to include representatives of state and local
governments and the public safety community. We have been tremendously
fortunate to have had a strong and dedicated Board to help steer
FirstNet through its initial formation and now into its deployment
phase.
FirstNet is a unique entity in the Federal Government, and a unique
and one of the most significant initiatives in the Department's
portfolio. It has a novel structure, with a mix of Board members from
both the public and private sectors and placement as an independent
entity within NTIA. Under the Act, FirstNet also has a statutory
exemption from some Federal requirements but not others; and the
ability to leverage auction proceeds, spectrum leases, and user fees to
succeed. Since FirstNet's inception, the Department has made the
success of FirstNet's important mission a top priority. It is important
to remember that FirstNet is a start-up with the challenge of standing
up a self-sustaining, nationwide, interoperable, world class
telecommunications network, within the applicable rules and regulations
of the Federal Government. Suffice it to say, that has its challenges.
Departmental Support of FirstNet
The Department has been actively involved in supporting FirstNet
and overseeing its activities. During its earliest days, FirstNet
depended heavily on Department and NTIA staff for administrative and
program support. Now that FirstNet is maturing as an organization,
there is less of a need for such involvement in FirstNet's day-to-day
activities.
The Department and NTIA, however, continue to offer support and
guidance to FirstNet on its strategic development. Secretary Pritzker
and I have engaged personally on FirstNet, and she has leveraged her
experience creating and running private-sector companies to help
FirstNet. For example, we led a collaborative process with FirstNet
through which FirstNet developed a Strategic Roadmap and cost model
validated by outside, independent experts.
The Department also provides certain legal, procurement, human
resources, and administrative support to FirstNet, where it does not
otherwise have the resources or direct authority to provide such
services itself. In doing so, we seek to streamline and expedite
Federal processes whenever possible and collaborate with FirstNet on
creative solutions. For example, the Department worked with FirstNet to
expedite its hiring by leveraging the Commerce Alternative Personnel
System. The Department also assisted FirstNet with its procurements,
facilitated efforts to identify appropriate larger-scale acquisition
assistance for the future, helped FirstNet find office space, and
worked closely with FirstNet to establish its administrative processes
and functions.
NTIA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
through their joint Public Safety Communications Research program,
collaborate with FirstNet on standards, interoperability research and
testing, and technical information sharing. NTIA also works with
FirstNet on its compliance with the Act's provisions, working with
FirstNet on its administrative functions as it gains its own
capacities, and managing the annual independent audit of FirstNet.
Additionally, NTIA has assisted FirstNet with putting into place
appropriate internal controls, appropriate processes, and strong
financial management systems. NTIA will continue to pay close attention
to the implementation of the FirstNet operations.
NTIA also administers the State and Local Implementation Grant
Program, which supports state, regional, tribal, and local
jurisdictions' consultations with FirstNet on the deployment of the
nationwide public safety broadband network. NTIA also collaborates with
FirstNet on NTIA's other statutory requirements contained in the Act.
For example, NTIA is responsible for reviewing and approving FirstNet's
fee structure annually, developing a state opt-out construction grant
program, and developing a Next Generation 9-1-1 grant program.
Office of Inspector General's Report
In December 2014, the Department's Office of Inspector General
(OIG) issued an Audit Report regarding the management of certain
financial disclosure reports and the monitoring of FirstNet contracts.
The Department appreciates the effort reflected in this report and
takes these matters seriously. The Department concurred with the OIG's
recommendations and has taken a number of steps to address them, which
I discuss below. With respect to both ethics and contracting, however,
it is important to emphasize that the report focused on issues arising
from FirstNet's early operations and to highlight the Department's full
efforts in anticipating and addressing these issues.
As Congress recognized when it established FirstNet, this ambitious
project would require both public-sector and private-sector expertise,
and would require that Board members have deep technical expertise in
wireless broadband communications and experience in building,
deploying, and operating commercial telecommunications networks.
Accordingly, FirstNet was created with a unique governance structure
that includes both public-sector and private-sector Board members. Many
of these Board members sacrificed in a number of ways, including
financially, to serve FirstNet's public safety goals. The private-
sector Board positions provide the Board, and FirstNet as a whole, with
significant and deep private-sector experience in the
telecommunications industry. To stand up a network, it is critical that
we have Board members with substantial industry experience. However, to
get people with extensive private-sector experience, it was likely that
such Board members would retain interests and affiliations within the
telecommunications industry, thus creating a need to consider carefully
potential conflicts of interest.
The Department addressed this issue through a robust ethics program
that worked closely with FirstNet Board members to counsel them
regarding their employment and financial interests, even before they
entered government service. Although some administrative requirements
may not have been fulfilled with respect to filing certain financial
disclosure reports timely, Board members made the material disclosures
necessary to identify and address potential conflicts. Notably, the OIG
report did not identify violations of conflict of interest laws or
circumstances that actually affected FirstNet decision-making.
Regarding contracts issues, it is important to note that the early
FirstNet contracts resulted in valuable work product that has been
critical to the rapid establishment of the organization. During
FirstNet's early days, like most start-ups, it sought and received
first-rate feasibility research, technical analysis, strategic
planning, and outreach services from highly specialized consultants,
whose work product has laid the groundwork for executing FirstNet's
mission.
To be clear, administrative errors were made along the way, and the
Department takes those mistakes seriously. The Department has taken
significant steps to address these errors. For example, we are
implementing increased review of financial disclosure reports filed by
FirstNet Board members and staff, increasing the level of review of
potential conflicts arising from FirstNet acquisitions and other
matters, and working to ensure that FirstNet and Department employees
receive appropriate ethics training. In addition, we have provided
additional training to and oversight of the Department Contracting
Office handling certain FirstNet contracts.
Since FirstNet's inception, the Department, NTIA, and FirstNet have
strived to stand up and operate this start-up organization in a
compliant and first-rate manner. Over the past year, FirstNet has grown
significantly in its organizational structure, and this growth has
provided greater resources, rigor, and oversight in the management of
its operations. FirstNet is now in a stronger position to supplement
the Department's efforts to implement policies and procedures, and
exercise its own governance and oversight that provide clear direction
and structure for the organization. I also think it is important that
we specially emphasize our appreciation to the private-sector Board
members. These private citizens are making significant sacrifices for a
noble goal, and trying to do it the right way. They deserve our
appreciation.
Continued Progress
With support from the Department and NTIA, FirstNet has made strong
progress. FirstNet's ability to make progress on deploying the network
is further enhanced now that FirstNet is fully funded under the Act's
provisions. Proceeds from the Federal Communications Commission's
recent AWS-3 auction will provide the full $7 billion provided for
FirstNet under the Act. FirstNet is achieving its milestones according
to the Strategic Program Roadmap related to state consultations,
requests for network proposals, and public notice and comment. This
coming year will be critical, as FirstNet pivots to a new phase focused
on developing and deploying its network. To be clear, we know and
understand that the FirstNet mission will not be fulfilled quickly. We
want FirstNet to set ambitious, but realistic time frames and
deadlines. And we understand that some internal deadlines have not and
will not be met. None of that undermines the hard work being performed
by the terrific team in place at FirstNet.
Conclusion
Creating a multibillion dollar, interoperable, nationwide, public
safety wireless broadband network is a major undertaking. We take our
responsibility for this project very seriously. Senior leadership from
the Department, NTIA, and FirstNet meet on a regular basis to discuss
current status of FirstNet's project milestones, potential risks, and
upcoming actions. The Department and NTIA will continue to play a key
support and oversight role to help ensure that FirstNet succeeds in its
important mission.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss FirstNet's progress
and challenges in establishing a public safety wireless broadband
network. As you can see, FirstNet is making strong progress towards its
goals. I appreciate the Committee's time and welcome questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Andrews.
Chief Bryant.
STATEMENT OF CHIEF G. KEITH BRYANT, PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF
THE BOARD, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS
Mr. Bryant. Good morning, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member
Nelson, and members of the Committee.
The International Association of Fire Chiefs represents
more than 11,000 leaders of the Nation's fire, rescue, and
emergency medical services. I would like to thank the Committee
for this opportunity to provide a public safety perspective on
the need for a nationwide public safety broadband network and
to examine the progress made by the First Responder Network
Authority, or FirstNet.
FirstNet's goal of building the nationwide public safety
broadband network to meet the needs of first responders is a
matter of critical importance for public safety. While the task
will not be easy, the IAFC believes that FirstNet is developing
the leadership, staff, and support from states, public safety,
and other key stakeholders required to make this network a
reality.
As a fire chief and as a firefighter who has responded to
numerous large-scale events including natural disasters and a
major act of terrorism, I know firsthand the benefits that the
FirstNet network stands to offer in terms of improving
communications, coordination, and situational awareness during
emergency response operations. Just as smartphones have changed
our personal lives, FirstNet devices and applications
ultimately will change the way local fire and Emergency Medical
Service departments operate.
In terms of daily operations, America's firefighters deal
with an increasingly complex environment that requires ever-
increasing amounts of information and data to keep citizens and
themselves safe. The FirstNet network will make it possible to
gain quick access to new tools and applications that provide
location data and other vital information for firefighting. It
will enable the exchange of real-time data and audio/video
feeds on the fireground to assist incident commanders with
operational decisionmaking and maximize search and rescue and
fire suppression effectiveness.
The FirstNet network will make a profound change in how
Emergency Medical Service is practiced. In the field of EMS, it
is important to arrive at a patient's location and transport
him or her to emergency care at the hospital within minutes.
The FirstNet network will facilitate critical decisionmaking in
real-time in the field, which, in turn, will help save lives.
Lessons learned from many events throughout the nation tell
us that under emergency conditions, the nation's cellular
carrier networks quickly become overwhelmed and unusable for
the transmission of emergency data. We experienced this
firsthand in Oklahoma City twenty years ago when the Alfred P.
Murrah Federal Building was bombed. The full deployment of
FirstNet's nationwide public safety broadband network will
ensure that America's first responders can access vital
information under all emergency conditions.
Candidly, I think there was skepticism from some in public
safety after FirstNet was formed that our concerns were not
being hear initially and that the network would not end up
being a mission-critical network. Public safety organizations
have consistently said that the network must be mission
critical at the outset. Under the leadership of new Chairwoman
Sue Swenson, FirstNet has sought greater input from the Public
Safety Advisory Committee and engaged with public safety far
more than previously. The Public Safety Advisory Committee is a
40-member committee established in statute to provide
significant recommendations and advice to FirstNet on mission-
critical issues. Public Safety Advisory Committee meets several
times a year including once this past year near my hometown in
Norman, Oklahoma.
We believe public safety's ongoing input through the Public
Safety Advisory Committee is vital at all stages of the
network's development so that it will be tailored to meet the
needs of the end users, America's first responders and other
public safety entities.
The IAFC and public safety in general also are very pleased
with the naming of Chief Jeffrey Johnson, former President and
Chairman of the Board of the IAFC, as Vice-Chair of FirstNet.
Chief Johnson is a well-recognized in fire and emergency
service community as a leader on public safety communications
issues.
We believe FirstNet has worked to create opportunities for
the public safety community to help shape the design of the
network in several states and territories. For instance, the
FirstNet Board members, including Chairwoman Swenson and
executive-level staff, have traveled throughout the country
over the past year, reaching out and connecting with local and
state public safety officials. This outreach has dramatically
improved over the past year and we look forward to it
continuing as the network is deployed.
FirstNet's state consultation process is a key element to
its success and is a venue where IAFC members and other public
safety personnel are able to ensure that the FirstNet is
meeting our needs. FirstNet has made tremendous strides with
state consultations in the past year conducting more than 100
engagements involving 20,000 stakeholders in Fiscal Year 2014.
Many of our members have attended and reported favorably on the
FirstNet's team engagement in their respective states and
territories. I understand that FirstNet intends to hold
consultation with the remaining states and territories by the
end of this year.
While there are still gaps in understanding and agreement
during these in-person meetings on what the final network will
look like, how much it will cost for public safety to use, and
the network's exact coverage areas, these are exactly the types
of questions that should be, and are being asked and debated at
state consultations throughout the country. Public safety must
be included in these conversations and we appreciate FirstNet's
engagement with the public safety community over the past year.
We realize there is still a lot of work to be done and
FirstNet must continue to move quickly on several key
activities in 2015. Collectively, these and other developments
from the last year have helped foster a more inclusive,
transparent and productive dialogue between FirstNet and the
public safety community. The FirstNet network is urgently
needed to increase the safety and capabilities of all public
safety personnel and protect the American people. However, it
is not only FirstNet, which bears the responsibility of
success. It also falls on all public safety officials to ensure
success in the creation and administration of the broadband
network.
I feel confident that FirstNet is on the right path toward
building a broadband network that will serve the nation's
firefighters, Emergency Medical Service providers, and other
emergency responders.
I truly appreciate the opportunity to be before you today
and offer this testimony. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bryant follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chief G. Keith Bryant, President and Chairman of
the Board, International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)
Good morning Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of
the Committee. I am Keith Bryant, fire chief of the Oklahoma City Fire
Department, and President and Chairman of the Board of the
International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC). The IAFC represents
more than 11,000 leaders of the Nation's fire, rescue and emergency
medical services. I would like to thank the Committee for this
opportunity to provide a public safety perspective on the need for a
nationwide public safety network and to examine the real progress that
the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) has made.
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-
96) established FirstNet as an independent authority within the U.S.
Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information
Administration. Under the act, FirstNet is tasked with building,
deploying, and operating a self-funding, sustainable, interoperable
broadband network for public safety entities across the country and
within U.S. territories.
FirstNet's goal of building the nationwide public safety broadband
network to meet the needs of first responders is a matter of critical
importance for public safety. While the task will not be easy, the IAFC
believes that FirstNet is developing the leadership, staff, and support
from states, public safety, and other key stakeholders required to make
this network a reality for first responders and the public who call on
them for help in their time of need.
As a veteran fire chief, and as a firefighter who has responded to
numerous large-scale events including natural disasters and acts of
terrorism, I know firsthand the benefits that the FirstNet network
stands to offer in terms of improving communications, coordination, and
situational awareness during public safety operations. Just as
smartphones have changed our personal lives, FirstNet devices and
applications ultimately will change the way public safety operates. The
ability for a single communications network to be used to dispatch
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel, a medical helicopter, fire
personnel, and other emergency responders from different jurisdictions
all at the same time, while enabling video, text, and data
communications at broadband speeds will save critical minutes when it
matters most.
As circumstances and technology continue to make our world smaller,
situational awareness, real-time information, and data are critical to
the safety of America's fire and emergency service and the public we
are sworn to protect. In terms of daily operations, America's
firefighters deal with an increasingly complex environment that
requires ever-increasing amounts of information and data to keep
citizens and themselves safe. The FirstNet network will make it
possible to gain quick access to new tools and applications that
provide location data and other vital information for firefighting. It
will enable the exchange of real-time data and audio/video feeds on the
fireground to assist incident commanders with operational decision-
making and maximize search and rescue and fire suppression
effectiveness.
The FirstNet network will make a profound change in how EMS is
practiced. In the field of EMS, it is important to arrive at the
critical-condition patient's location and transport him or her to
emergency care at the hospital within minutes. The FirstNet network
will facilitate critical decision-making in real time in the field
which in turn will help save lives.
Lessons learned from many events throughout the Nation tell us that
under emergency conditions, the Nation's cellular carrier networks
quickly become overwhelmed and unusable for transmission of emergency
data. We experienced this first hand in Oklahoma City twenty years ago
when the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was bombed. The full
development of FirstNet's nationwide public safety broadband network
will ensure that America's first responders can access vital
information under all emergency conditions.
Candidly, I think there was skepticism from some in public safety
after FirstNet was formed that our concerns were not being heard
initially and that the network would not end up being a mission-
critical network. Public safety organizations have consistently said
that the network must be mission critical at the outset. Under the
leadership of new Chair Sue Swenson, FirstNet has sought greater input
from the Public Safety Advisory Committee (PSAC) and engaged with
public safety far more than previously. The PSAC is a 40-member
committee established by the law creating FirstNet to provide
significant recommendations and advice to FirstNet on mission-critical
issues. The PSAC meets several times a year, including once this past
year near my home town in Norman, Oklahoma.
The PSAC developed and delivered the following documents to
FirstNet this past year:
A Human Factors Report that analyzes the long-range impacts
of the network on the way law enforcement, fire, and EMS
operate;
A Potential Users Report that identifies and categorizes
lists of potential network users;
A report containing Use Cases for Interfaces, Applications,
and Capabilities that envisions practical examples for how the
network will be used.
Recently, the PSAC has been tasked with researching how local
incident commanders might use priority and preemption on the network as
well as envisioning what types of devices are necessary for public
safety personnel in each respective field. We believe public safety's
ongoing input through the PSAC is vital at all stages of the network's
development so that it will be tailored to the needs of the end users--
America's first responders and other public safety entities.
The IAFC and public safety in general are also very pleased with
the naming of Chief Jeffrey D. Johnson, former President and Chairman
of Board of the IAFC, as Vice-Chair of FirstNet. Chief Johnson is well-
recognized in the fire and emergency service community as a leader on
public safety communications issues.
We believe FirstNet has worked to create opportunities for the
public safety community to help shape the design of the network in
several states and territories. For instance, FirstNet Board members,
including Chair Swenson and executive-level staff, have traveled
throughout the country over the past year, reaching out and connecting
with local and state public safety officials. This outreach has
dramatically improved over the past year and we look forward to it
continuing as the network is deployed.
FirstNet's state consultation process is a key element to its
success and is a venue where IAFC members and other public safety
personnel are able to ensure that FirstNet is meeting our needs.
FirstNet has made tremendous strides with state consultations in the
past year conducting more than 100 engagements involving 20,000
stakeholders in Fiscal Year 2014. Many of our members have attended and
reported favorably on the FirstNet team's engagement in their
respective states and territories. FirstNet has met with 16 states and
territories; they have over 20 additional scheduled by the end of this
summer. The IAFC believes that is it critical that FirstNet continue
its nationwide outreach and consultation to ensure coordination with
the public safety community in urban, rural, and remote locations,
including island states and tribal nations. I understand that FirstNet
intends to hold consultations with the remaining states and territories
by the end of this year.
While there are still gaps in understanding and agreement during
these in-person meetings on what the final network will look like, how
much it will cost for public safety to use, and the network's exact
coverage areas, these are exactly the types of questions that should
be--and are being--asked and debated at state consultations throughout
the country. Public safety must be included in these conversations and
we appreciate FirstNet's engagement with the public safety community
over the past year.
Public safety fought hard to establish FirstNet because we knew
that we were being left behind compared to the technologies available
for personal-use communications. The IAFC, and public safety, are
united behind the desire to see FirstNet succeed and we will continue
to fight for public safety's access to the best available technology to
keep the public safe.
We realize there is still a lot of work to be done and FirstNet
must continue to move quickly on several key activities in 2015, but
collectively, these and other developments from the past year have
helped foster a more inclusive, transparent, and productive dialogue
between FirstNet and the public safety community. The FirstNet network
is urgently needed to increase the safety and capabilities of all
public safety personnel and protect the American people. It is not only
FirstNet which bears the responsibility of success, but it also falls
on all public safety to ensure success in the creation and
administration of the broadband network. I feel confident that FirstNet
is on the right path toward building a broadband network that will
serve the Nation's firefighters, EMS providers, and other emergency
responders.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing. I look
forward to answering any questions that you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Chief.
Mr. Goldstein.
STATEMENT OF MARK L. GOLDSTEIN, DIRECTOR,
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES,
U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Goldstein. Good morning, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member
Nelson, and members of the Committee.
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our ongoing work
on FirstNet. FirstNet is talked with establishing a nationwide,
interoperable, wireless broadband network specifically for
public safety. We are currently finalizing a report on
FirstNet's efforts. As such, the findings I am reporting this
morning are preliminary in nature.
The 2012 Act established numerous responsibilities for
FirstNet, provided $7 billion from spectrum auction proceeds
for the network's construction, and required FirstNet to be
self-funding beyond this initial allocation. As part of that
effort, FirstNet is working with five Early Builder projects
that are permissioned to build local and regional interoperable
public safety broadband networks.
My statement addresses, one, FirstNet's progress carrying
out its responsibilities and establishing internal controls,
two, how much the network is estimated to cost and how FirstNet
plans to become self-funding, and three, what lessons can be
learned from our early builder projects.
Our preliminary findings are as follows: First, GAO found
that FirstNet has made progress carrying out the
responsibilities established in the act, but lack certain
elements that affect internal controls. FirstNet has made
progress establishing an organizational structure, planning the
nationwide public safety broadband network, and consulting with
stakeholders. Nevertheless, stakeholders GAO contacted sited
upcoming issues such as deciding the level of network of
coverage, which will be difficult for FirstNet to address as it
continues to carry out its responsibilities.
With respect to internal controls, FirstNet has begun
establishing policies and practices consistent with Federal
standards, but it has not fully assessed its risks or
established standards of conduct. Given that FirstNet faces a
multitude of risks to achieve its complex objectives, fully
assessing risks would help FirstNet respond to risks in a
proactive way. Developing standards of contact would help
FirstNet address conduct and performance issues in a timely
manner.
Second, GAO found that a nationwide public safety broadband
network is estimated to cost billions of dollars and FirstNet
faces difficult decisions determining how to fund the network's
construction and ongoing operations. Various entities have
estimated the cost to construct and operate such a network from
$12 billion to $47 billion of the first 10 years. The actual
cost of FirstNet's network will be influenced by FirstNet's
business model especially the extent of personal partnerships,
use of existing infrastructure, efforts to ensure network
reliability, and network coverage.
For example, the cost of the network will likely increase
if FirstNet does not utilize commercial partnerships and at
least some existing infrastructure. The 2012 Act provides
FirstNet $7 billion to establish the network. To become self-
funding, FirstNet is authorized to generate revenue through
user fees and commercial partnerships, the latter of which can
involve secondary use of the network for non-public safety
services. However, GAO's ongoing work suggests that FirstNet
faces difficult decisions in determining how to best utilize
these revenue sources. For instances, widespread network
coverage can attract more users and thus user fee revenues, but
is expensive to construct and maintain especially in rural
areas, as the Chairman has noted.
Finally, we found that FirstNet has taken steps to collect
and evaluate information and lessons from the five Early
Builder projects that are developing local and regional public
safety networks, but it could do more to ensure that it
properly evaluates and incorporates these lessons. For example,
FirstNet has asked the projects to report on the experiences of
their networks' users and has assigned contractors to collect
and log lessons.
However, preliminary results indicate that FirstNet does
not have a plan that clearly articulates how it will evaluate
those experiences and lessons. GAO has previously found that a
well-developed evaluation plan for projects like these can help
ensure that agencies obtain the information necessary to make
effective program and policy decisions. Given that the Early
Builder projects are doing on a local and regional level what
FirstNet must eventually do nationally, an evaluation plan can
play a key role in FirstNet's strategic planning and program
management, providing feedback on both program design and
execution and ensuring FirstNet has not missed opportunities to
incorporate lessons the projects have identified.
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, members of the
Committee, this concludes my remarks. I would be happy to
answer questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldstein follows:]
GAO Highlights--March 11, 2015
Public Safety Communications
Preliminary Information on FirstNet's Efforts to Establish a Nationwide
Broadband Network
Why GAO Did This Study
Public safety officials rely on thousands of separate radio systems
to communicate during emergencies, which often lack interoperability,
or the ability to communicate across agencies and jurisdictions. The
2012 act created FirstNet to establish a nationwide, interoperable,
wireless broadband network for public safety use. In doing so, the act
established numerous responsibilities for FirstNet, provided $7 billion
from spectrum auctions proceeds for the network's construction, and
required FirstNet to be self-funding beyond this initial allocation. As
part of the effort, FirstNet is working with five ``early builder
projects'' that have permission to build local and regional
interoperable public-safety broadband networks.
This statement is based on preliminary information from GAO's
ongoing review of FirstNet. This statement addresses (1) FirstNet's
progress carrying out its responsibilities and establishing internal
controls, (2) how much the network is estimated to cost and how
FirstNet plans to become self-funding, and (3) what lessons can be
learned from the early builder projects. GAO reviewed relevant FirstNet
documentation and public-safety network cost estimates recommended by
agency officials and experts; surveyed the state-designated FirstNet
contact in 50 states, 5 territories, and the District of Columbia; and
interviewed FirstNet officials and public safety and wireless industry
stakeholders selected for their telecommunications and public safety
experience, among other things.
What GAO Found
GAO's ongoing work has found that the First Responder Network
Authority (FirstNet) has made progress carrying out the
responsibilities established in the 2012 Middle Class Tax Relief and
Job Creation Act (the 2012 act) but lacks certain elements of effective
internal controls. FirstNet has made progress establishing an
organizational structure, planning the nationwide public-safety
broadband network, and consulting with stakeholders. Nevertheless,
stakeholders GAO contacted cited upcoming issues, such as deciding the
level of network coverage, which will be difficult for FirstNet to
address as it continues to carry out its responsibilities. With respect
to internal controls, FirstNet has begun establishing policies and
practices consistent with Federal standards, but it has not fully
assessed its risks or established Standards of Conduct. Given that
FirstNet faces a multitude of risks to achieve its complex objectives,
fully assessing risks would help FirstNet respond to risks in a
proactive way. Developing standards of conduct would help FirstNet
address conduct and performance issues in a timely manner.
A nationwide public-safety broadband network is estimated to cost
billions of dollars, and FirstNet faces difficult decisions determining
how to fund the network's construction and ongoing operations. Various
entities have estimated the cost to construct and operate such a
network from $12 to $47 billion over the first 10 years. The actual
cost of FirstNet's network will be influenced by FirstNet's (1)
business model, especially the extent of commercial partnerships; (2)
use of existing infrastructure; (3) efforts to ensure network
reliability; and (4) network coverage. For example, the cost of the
network will likely increase if FirstNet does not utilize commercial
partnerships and at least some existing infrastructure. The 2012 act
provides FirstNet $7 billion to establish the network. To become self-
funding, FirstNet is authorized to generate revenue through user fees
and commercial partnerships, the latter of which can involve secondary
use of the network for non-public safety services. However, GAO's
ongoing work suggests that FirstNet faces difficult decisions in
determining how to best utilize these revenue sources. For instance,
widespread network coverage can attract more users, and thus user fee
revenue, but is expensive to construct and maintain, especially in
rural areas.
FirstNet has taken steps to collect and evaluate information and
lessons from the five ``early builder projects'' that are developing
local and regional public-safety networks, but could do more to ensure
that it properly evaluates and incorporates these lessons. For example,
FirstNet has asked the projects to report on the experiences of their
networks' users and has assigned contractors to collect and log
lessons. However, preliminary results indicate that FirstNet does not
have a plan that clearly articulates how it will evaluate those
experiences and lessons. GAO has previously found that a well-developed
evaluation plan for projects like these can help ensure that agencies
obtain the information necessary to make effective program and policy
decisions. Given that the early builder projects are doing on a local
and regional level what FirstNet must eventually do nationally, an
evaluation plan can play a key role in FirstNet's strategic planning
and program management, providing feedback on both program design and
execution and ensuring FirstNet has not missed opportunities to
incorporate lessons the projects have identified.
______
Prepared Statement of Mark L. Goldstein, Director, Physical
Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Public Safety Communications--Preliminary Information on FirstNet's
Efforts to Establish a Nationwide Broadband Network
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the
Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our ongoing work on the
First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet). The 2012 Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act (the 2012 Act) created FirstNet as an
independent authority within the Department of Commerce's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).\1\ FirstNet
is tasked with establishing a nationwide, interoperable, wireless
broadband network specifically for public safety (hereafter, the public
safety network). We are currently finalizing a report on FirstNet's
efforts; as such, the findings that I am reporting to the Committee
today are preliminary in nature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pub. L. No. 112-96, Sec. 6204(a), 126 Stat. 156, 208 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communication systems are essential for public safety officials--
especially first responders such as police, firefighters, and
paramedics--to gather and share information during emergencies. Today,
first responders rely on thousands of separate, incompatible, and often
proprietary land mobile radio (LMR) systems for their mission-critical
voice communications. Oftentimes these LMR systems lack
``interoperability''--the capabilities that allow first responders to
communicate with their counterparts in other agencies and
jurisdictions--which has been a long-standing concern. For example,
during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and also during
Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the lack of interoperable public safety
communications hampered rescue efforts. To supplement these LMR
systems, many first responders also use commercial wireless networks
for data transmissions. While FirstNet's public safety network will not
initially improve the interoperability of voice communications among
first responders, the network is expected to support important data
transmission (such as security-camera video feeds). For mission-
critical voice communications, public safety entities will likely
continue to rely on their LMR systems for many years.
The 2012 act established numerous responsibilities for FirstNet,
allocated billions of dollars for the network's construction, and set
aside radio frequency spectrum on which it will operate.\2\ Public
safety users of the network, and potentially other ``secondary''
users,\3\ may be charged fees to use the network, much as they
currently pay to use commercial wireless networks. To inform its work,
FirstNet has been consulting with numerous federal, state, local, and
tribal jurisdictions, and is working with five ``early builder
projects'' that received Federal funding to deploy local and regional
public-safety broadband networks similar to what FirstNet is required
to establish on a national scale. FirstNet also has to develop a
business plan that supports the upfront and ongoing costs of the
network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Radio signals travel through space in the form of waves. These
waves vary in length, and each wavelength is associated with a
particular radio frequency. The radio frequency spectrum is the part of
the natural spectrum of electromagnetic radiation lying between the
frequency limits of 3 kilohertz (kHz) and 300 gigahertz (GHz).
\3\ The 2012 act allows FirstNet to establish agreements that allow
access to the public safety network through entities involved in the
construction, management, or operation of the network, on a secondary
basis for services other than public safety, such as individual
commercial customers using the network much as they currently use
existing commercial networks. Pub. L. No. 112-96, Sec. 6208(a)(2)(B),
126 Stat. 156, 216, 208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My statement today presents preliminary information from our
ongoing review--requested by this Committee--of FirstNet. My statement
will address: (1) the extent to which FirstNet is carrying out its
responsibilities and establishing internal controls for developing the
public safety network, (2) how much the network is estimated to cost to
construct and operate and how FirstNet plans to become a self-funding
entity, and (3) what lessons can be learned from local and regional
public-safety-network early builder projects.
For our ongoing work, we reviewed FirstNet documentation--such as
its Requests for Information (RFI) and FirstNet board meeting
materials--and compared FirstNet's efforts with requirements
established in the 2012 act.\4\ We also compared FirstNet's efforts to
establish internal controls with criteria established in the Federal
Standards for Internal Control.\5\ We reviewed cost estimates for a
nationwide public-safety broadband network from the Congressional
Budget Office, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and
academics.\6\ We reviewed documentation related to how FirstNet plans
to collect and evaluate lessons learned from the early builder
projects--such as Spectrum Manager Lease Agreements and Key Learning
Conditions Plans--and assessed these plans against key features of a
well-developed evaluation plan for pilot projects identified by our
previous reports.\7\ To obtain stakeholder views, we surveyed all 50
states, the District of Columbia, and 5 U.S. territories (hereafter,
states) and received 55 responses, for a 98 percent response rate.\8\
We interviewed FirstNet and NTIA officials and a variety of other
stakeholders, such as officials from state and local public safety
entities, commercial wireless carriers, subject matter experts, public
safety associations, Federal agencies including FCC and the Department
of Homeland Security, and government officials in Sweden responsible
for establishing a public-safety communications network in their
country.\9\ We also interviewed officials from the five current early
builder projects (Los Angeles, CA; Adams County, CO; New Jersey; New
Mexico; and Harris County, TX) and three projects that were canceled
(Charlotte, NC; Mississippi; and San Francisco, CA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ We did not review FirstNet's progress against every
responsibility established for it in the 2012 act, because it is not
possible for FirstNet to have made progress on some responsibilities.
\5\ GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999). The most recent
version of these standards was issued in September 2014. GAO, Standards
for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2014). These new standards become
effective October 1, 2015, but an entity's management may elect early
adoption. According to FirstNet officials, as the Department of
Commerce proceeds with the rollout of these revisions, NTIA and
FirstNet will also adopt these new standards. Although these new
standards are not yet effective and FirstNet is not required to abide
by them, given that they will be effective soon and that FirstNet is
still in the process of developing its internal control system, doing
so according to these new standards would prevent FirstNet from having
to re-design any elements of its system later this year.
\6\ We identified these cost estimates through interviews with
agency officials and subject matter experts. We did not perform a full
data reliability assessment of the numbers in these estimates because
the purpose of the estimates within the scope of our review was to
provide illustrative examples.
\7\ See, for example, GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to
Strengthen Its Approach for Evaluating the SRFMI Data-Sharing Pilot
Program, GAO-09-45 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 7, 2008). GAO-09-45
identified key features of an evaluation plan through the consultation
of social science and evaluation literature, along with published GAO
guidance.
\8\ We e-mailed the survey to the FirstNet Single Point of Contact
in each state. We administered the survey from October 2014 through
November 2014. We did not receive a response from Puerto Rico.
\9\ We selected stakeholders by considering their involvement in
the early builder project jurisdictions, experience with operating and
using wireless communications systems and public-safety communications
systems and devices in particular, familiarity with FirstNet and its
mission, and--to obtain a cross-section of public safety disciplines--
their public safety role.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our ongoing review is being conducted in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. We discussed the information in
this statement with FirstNet officials to obtain their views. As our
work is ongoing, we are not making recommendations for FirstNet at this
time; we plan to further analyze information related to these issues
and provide this Committee with a final report later this year. At this
Committee's request, we also plan to review FirstNet's efforts to
satisfy key technical requirements of the network in the future.
Background
The 2012 act established numerous responsibilities for FirstNet,
most of which relate directly to developing the public safety network.
For example, in establishing the network, FirstNet must
issue open, transparent, and competitive Requests for
Proposals (RFP) to private sector entities for the purpose of
building, operating, and maintaining the network;
enter into agreements to use, to the maximum extent
economically desirable, existing commercial, federal, state,
local, and tribal infrastructure;
promote competition in the public-safety equipment
marketplace by requiring that equipment for the network be
built to open, non-proprietary standards; and
develop the technical and operational requirements for the
network, as well as the practices and procedures for managing
and operating it.
In establishing the infrastructure for the public safety network,
the 2012 act requires FirstNet to include the network components
depicted in figure 1.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Pub. L. No. 112-96, Sec. 6202(b), 126 Stat, 156, 206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: Key Elements of First Responder Network Authority's Public
Safety Network
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
a Generally, ``dongles'' are small devices that plug
into computers and serve as an adapter or as a security measure to
enable the use of certain software.
b Generally, ``air cards'' are wireless adapters for
sending and receiving data in a cellular network.
In developing the public safety network, FirstNet must work with a
variety of stakeholders. The 2012 act required FirstNet to be headed by
a 15-member board with 3 permanent members and 12 individuals appointed
by the Secretary of Commerce.\11\ The 2012 act also required FirstNet
to establish a standing public safety advisory committee to assist it
in carrying out FirstNet's responsibilities and consult with federal,
regional, state, local, and tribal jurisdictions on developing the
network.\12\ For state, local, and tribal planning consultations,
FirstNet is required to work with the Single Points of Contact (SPOC)
who have been designated by each state.\13\ Specifically, SPOCs are the
individuals responsible for working with FirstNet in their states, and
FirstNet will work through these individuals to gather requirements
from key stakeholders in each state. The 2012 act requires FirstNet to
notify the states when it has completed its RFPs for building,
operating, and maintaining the public safety network.\14\ Once a state
receives the details of FirstNet's plans, it has 90 days either to
agree to allow FirstNet to construct a Radio Access Network (RAN) in
that state or notify FirstNet, NTIA, and FCC of its intent to deploy
its own RAN.\15\ The 2012 act required FCC, the entity responsible for
managing and licensing commercial and non-federal spectrum use--
including spectrum allocated to public safety--to grant FirstNet the
license to the public safety spectrum that the act set aside for the
network.\16\ FCC has also conducted spectrum auctions, as required by
the 2012 act, so that auction proceeds could be used to fund FirstNet.
The 2012 act provides $7 billion from these proceeds to FirstNet for
buildout of the network, and requires FirstNet to become self-funding
beyond this initial $7 billion by generating revenue through user fees
and other sources.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The 3 permanent members are the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget. The appointed members are required to have
public safety experience or technical, network, or financial expertise.
Pub. L. No. 112-96, Sec. 6204(b)(2)(B), 126 Stat. 156, 209.
\12\ Pub. L. No. 112-96, Sec. 6205, 126 Stat. 156, 211.
\13\ Pub. L. No. 112-96, Sec. 6206(c)(2)(B), 126 Stat. 156, 214.
\14\ Pub. L. No. 112-96, Sec. 6302(e)(1), 126 Stat. 156, 219.
\15\ A state that ``opts out'' of FirstNet's network has an
additional 180 days to send FCC an alternative plan for constructing,
operating, and maintaining its RAN. The plan must demonstrate that the
state's proposed RAN would comply with certain minimum technical
requirements and be interoperable with FirstNet's network. FCC shall
either approve or disapprove the plan. In addition, a state that opts
out is required to apply to NTIA for an agreement to use FirstNet's
spectrum.
\16\ Specifically, the 2012 act required FCC to reallocate the ``D
Block,'' a previously commercial spectrum block located in the upper
700 megahertz (MHz) band, to public safety and to grant a license to
FirstNet for the use of both the existing public-safety broadband
spectrum in the upper 700 MHz band and the D Block. Pub. L. No. 112-96,
Sec. Sec. 6101 and 6201, 126 Stat. 156, 205 and 206.
\17\ The $7 billion is reduced by the amount needed to establish
FirstNet, as well as the amount provided to states to help them prepare
for the network and, if they choose to opt out of FirstNet's network,
to construct their own RANs. NTIA was allowed to borrow $2 billion from
the U.S. Treasury to support FirstNet's work prior to the deposit of
auction proceeds into the newly created Public Safety Trust Fund, and
must reimburse the Treasury from funds deposited into the Public Safety
Trust Fund once the spectrum auctions are complete. Pub. L. No. 112-96,
Sec. Sec. 6207 and 6208, 126 Stat. 156, 215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efforts to establish local and regional public-safety networks are
also ongoing, and predate the 2012 act. From 2009 to 2011, FCC granted
waivers from its public-safety spectrum rules to 22 jurisdictions to
allow early deployment of local and regional public-safety broadband
networks.\18\ Of those 22 jurisdictions, 8 projects received Federal
funding to deploy their networks.\19\ After FCC granted FirstNet its
public-safety broadband spectrum license in November 2012, the
jurisdictions had to secure a Spectrum Manager Lease Agreement with
FirstNet to continue deploying their networks. By August 2014, FirstNet
secured these agreements with five original waiver jurisdictions, all
of which had received Federal funding to deploy their networks: Los
Angeles, CA; Adams County, CO; New Jersey; New Mexico; and Harris
County, TX; in this statement, we refer to these jurisdictions as early
builder projects. Three other original waiver jurisdictions that
received Federal funds were unable to reach an agreement with FirstNet
for various reasons and, thus, were canceled: Charlotte, NC;
Mississippi; and San Francisco, CA. FirstNet has not yet determined if
or how the early builder project networks will be incorporated into its
nationwide network, and has noted that various factors could affect
this determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Requests for Waiver of Various Petitioners to Allow the
Establishment of 700 MHz Interoperable Public Safety Wireless Broadband
Networks, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 5145, (2010); Requests for Waiver of
Various Petitioners to Allow the Establishment of 700 MHz Interoperable
Public Safety Wireless Broadband Networks, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 6783,
(2011).
\19\ Seven projects received funding through the Broadband
Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), which is a Federal grant
program to promote the expansion of broadband infrastructure. NTIA was
authorized to award BTOP grants through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009). One
project, located in Harris County, TX, obtained a grant for its project
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FirstNet Is Making Progress Meeting Responsibilities but Lacks Certain
Elements of Effective Internal Controls
FirstNet Is Making Progress Carrying Out Statutory Responsibilities
Our ongoing work indicates that FirstNet has made progress carrying
out its statutory responsibilities in three areas--(1) establishing its
organizational structure, (2) planning the public safety network, and
(3) consulting with stakeholders--but could face challenges in each of
these areas.
Establishing its Organizational Structure
As a newly created entity within the Federal Government, FirstNet
has taken a number of steps to establish its organizational structure
and hire staff. As required by the 2012 act, the Secretary of Commerce
appointed FirstNet's inaugural Board Members in August 2012 and, in
February 2013, established the Public Safety Advisory Committee
(PSAC).\20\ In April 2013, the FirstNet Board selected an Executive
Director to lead its day-to-day operations.\21\ Since then, FirstNet
has hired, and continues to hire, other senior management personnel to
lead its organizational units (such as a Chief Counsel and Chief
Administrative, Financial, and Information Officers), Directors and
organizational chiefs to further lead and perform its work, and other
general staff. As of February 2015, FirstNet had over 120 employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Pub. L. No. 112-96, Sec. Sec. 6204(b) and 6205(a)(1), 126
Stat. 156, 209 and 211.
\21\ FirstNet originally called this position ``General Manager''
but has since changed the position to ``Executive Director.''
FirstNet's first Executive Director resigned in April 2014. As of
February 2015, the position was still vacant and FirstNet's Deputy
Executive Director is serving as Acting Executive Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholders we spoke with and surveyed for our ongoing work
expressed concern that organizational issues have slowed FirstNet's
progress, and could continue to do so. In particular, in response to
our survey, numerous SPOCs either noted that FirstNet's placement
within NTIA could create ``bureaucratic'' obstacles or that FirstNet
should be more independent from NTIA. However, FirstNet officials told
us that while FirstNet has leveraged its relationship with NTIA in
administrative and legal matters, it exercises strong independence in
decisions that are directly program-related. Numerous stakeholders we
surveyed and interviewed were also concerned about the pace of
FirstNet's hiring, noting that the Federal hiring process is too slow,
has not allowed FirstNet to hire staff quickly enough, and has delayed
FirstNet's progress. For example, FirstNet hired State and Local,
Tribal, and Federal Outreach Leads in June and August 2014, almost 2
years after FirstNet's Board Members were appointed, and is still in
the process of hiring staff for key positions. According to FirstNet
officials, FirstNet faces challenges hiring as quickly as it would like
to due to government hiring procedures, but is seeking direct hire
authority from the Office of Personnel Management.
Planning the Public Safety Network
To plan the public safety network and help ensure that its approach
is open and transparent and meets the 2012 act's requirements, FirstNet
intends to follow the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) process for
its comprehensive network services procurement.\22\ This process will
culminate in one or multiple RFPs for ``network solution(s)''--that is,
proposals for the building, deployment, operation, and maintenance of
the public safety network. To help it draft the RFP(s), FirstNet has
sought comments through an October 2012 Notice of Inquiry, 13 RFIs
issued between April 2013 and September 2014, and a September 2014
Public Notice.\23\ Through these items, FirstNet has sought comment on
various technical aspects of the network, devices and applications for
public safety, and its interpretations of the 2012 act's requirements.
FirstNet received almost 600 comments to these Notices and RFIs.
FirstNet confirmed in February 2015 that it expects to issue a draft
RFP and a second Public Notice by the end of March 2015. FirstNet has
also received technical input from a variety of stakeholders, such as
FCC, the PSAC, the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council
(NPSTC), and the Public Safety Communications Research (PSCR)
program.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The FAR is a substantial and complex set of rules governing
the process by which Executive Branch agencies purchase goods and
services. Its purpose is to ensure purchasing procedures are standard
and consistent, and conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
\23\ 79 Fed. Reg. 57058 (Sept. 24, 2014).
\24\ NPSTC is a federation of organizations whose mission is to
improve public safety communications and interoperability through
collaborative leadership. PSCR is a joint National Institute of
Standards and Technology and NTIA effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While many stakeholders we surveyed and interviewed for our ongoing
work noted that FirstNet's progress has been too slow, some also noted
that they were satisfied with FirstNet's progress given the complex
nature of FirstNet's tasks and that it is a government entity subject
to Federal rules and regulations. Some also said that FirstNet's
progress has improved recently, especially as FirstNet has hired more
staff. However, numerous stakeholders we interviewed cited upcoming
difficulties. For example, they noted that deciding the level of
network coverage and security, working out agreements for use of
existing infrastructure, and navigating state regulations will be
difficult issues to address moving forward.
Consulting Stakeholders
FirstNet has initiated a process to consult with the SPOC in each
state and FirstNet officials have conducted outreach to other
stakeholders. FirstNet began its formal state consultation process in
April 2014; as part of this process, FirstNet plans to hold an initial
consultation meeting in each state. Initial state consultation meetings
began in July 2014--when FirstNet conducted its first consultation with
Maryland--and FirstNet expects these initial meetings to continue
through 2015, with additional rounds to follow. As of February 25,
2015, FirstNet has conducted initial consultation meetings with 14
states and Puerto Rico. Additionally, from October 2013 to February
2015, FirstNet officials visited 39 states and territories while
participating in 187 events, such as public safety, industry, and
government (including federal, state, local, and tribal) conferences.
FirstNet also launched a public website in March 2014, where it
regularly posts updates, presentations, board meeting minutes, a list
of upcoming speaking engagements, and other information.
The majority of stakeholders we surveyed for our ongoing work were
generally satisfied with the level of FirstNet's consultation and
outreach, but others were dissatisfied and said that they would like
more new information. Specifically, in response to our survey, 54
percent of SPOCs said they were either ``moderately'' or ``very''
satisfied with FirstNet's overall level of consultation, coordination,
and communication with their state, including the level of input
FirstNet has sought from their state, and 22 percent said they were
either ``moderately'' or ``very'' dissatisfied.\25\ Numerous
stakeholders we surveyed and interviewed said that they would like more
new and detailed information and that they would like FirstNet to focus
more on certain aspects of the public safety network during outreach.
However, in response to our survey, many SPOCs also acknowledged that
the level of new and detailed information exchanged will likely
increase once they hold their initial state consultation meeting with
FirstNet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Twenty-two percent were ``neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied.'' These percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding and
because one SPOC responded ``do not know.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FirstNet Has Not Assessed Risk or Established a Complete Control
Environment
Internal controls are the plans, methods, policies, and procedures
that an entity uses to fulfill its mission, strategic plan, goals and
objectives. An effective internal control system increases the
likelihood that an entity will achieve its objectives. For our ongoing
review, we assessed FirstNet's policies and practices against two
components of an effective Federal internal control system: Risk
Assessment and Control Environment.\26\ For those two components, we
found that FirstNet lacks certain elements that contribute to the
proper implementation of effective internal control systems. While
FirstNet has stated that it is relying on the Department of Commerce
and NTIA's internal controls where it has not developed its own, it is
important for FirstNet to implement its own controls, as the Commerce
Office of Inspector General (OIG) noted as early as February 2014 in a
memo on the management challenges facing FirstNet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ We chose these two components because risk assessment provides
the basis for developing appropriate risk responses and control
activities, and the control environment is the foundation for an
internal control system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk Assessment
According to Federal internal control standards, management should
assess risks facing the entity as it seeks to achieve its objectives.
Specifically, entities should first clearly define their objectives
then identify and analyze risks from both internal and external
sources. Analyzing risks generally includes estimating the risk's
significance, assessing the likelihood of its occurrence, and deciding
how to respond to it. Risk assessments inform an entity's policies,
planning, and priorities, and help entities develop responses to the
risks they face, so that they can achieve their objectives.
Our preliminary results indicate that, although FirstNet has set
objectives and taken some steps to assess risks it has not yet fully
assessed risks it may face in accomplishing its objectives.
Specifically, FirstNet has set three key objectives and has further
delineated how it will accomplish these objectives in a ``roadmap''
that identifies additional long-term and short-term objectives and
milestones.\27\ To support its development of this roadmap, FirstNet
created a ``risk register'' that identifies some risks related to its
financial sustainability as well as possible counter-measures.\28\
However, FirstNet officials told us in November 2014 that they had not
yet fully assessed risks because they were in the process of defining
risk factors and, again in December 2014, because they were in the
process of conducting a legal compliance risk assessment of certain key
risk areas. In December 2014, FirstNet officials also said that they
intend to perform periodic risk assessments in various areas to manage
risks on an iterative basis. However, as of February 2015, FirstNet has
not yet completed these risk assessment activities; therefore, we were
unable to evaluate them and it remains unclear how effective FirstNet's
efforts will be in helping it to identify and respond to obstacles to
fulfilling its responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Due to the sensitive information about FirstNet's procurement
activities contained in this roadmap, FirstNet has not publicly
released the full version. The executive summary is available on
FirstNet's website at http://www.firstnet.gov/content/march-board-
directors-meeting.
\28\ Due to the sensitive information about FirstNet's procurement
and cost estimating activities contained in this risk register,
FirstNet has not publicly released it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As FirstNet performs these assessments, we believe that it will be
important for FirstNet to incorporate all of the elements of risk
assessment detailed in the Federal internal control standards. An
internal control system that is not based on complete risk assessments
(that is, assessments that incorporate these elements) could lead to
FirstNet responding to risks in a reactive manner and could hinder
FirstNet's ability to achieve its objectives while maximizing use of
its available resources. We are concerned that the complexity of
FirstNet's objectives, makeup of its board, and challenges it will face
becoming self-funding illustrate the multitude of potential risks
FirstNet faces. For example, as we point out later in this statement,
various factors could hinder whether public safety entities adopt the
public safety network--and thus how much user fee revenue FirstNet can
collect--which could pose risks to FirstNet's ability to become self-
funding.
Control Environment
The control environment is the foundation for an internal control
system and provides the basic structure that helps an entity achieve
its objectives. To help set this environment, according to Federal
internal control standards, an entity should, among other things,
demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values, such as by
setting a positive ``tone at the top,'' providing and evaluating
adherence to ethical and behavioral guidance, and removing temptations
for unethical behavior.
Our preliminary results indicate that, although FirstNet has taken
a number of steps to establish an effective control environment, it has
not yet finished doing so. FirstNet has held ethics briefings,
counseling, and training; distributed ethics documents; and instituted
a Board Member Vendor Interaction Policy to establish processes for
interacting with vendors with a potential interest in FirstNet's
procurement. However, as of February 2015, FirstNet had not yet
developed Standards of Conduct, which is an important form of ethical
and behavioral guidance. According to FirstNet officials, FirstNet
intends to develop Standards of Conduct but has not yet done so
because, as a ``startup'' entity, building up the organization while
making progress meeting statutory responsibilities is a balancing act
affected by FirstNet's priorities and resources.
Nonetheless, absent Standards of Conduct, we are concerned that
FirstNet may not be able to address deviations in conduct and
performance and take corrective actions in a timely manner. Indeed,
FirstNet itself established a special committee in May 2013 to review
ethical concerns raised by one of its Board Members. Similarly, in a
December 2014 report, the Department of Commerce OIG identified
concerns with FirstNet's financial disclosure reporting and contracting
practices, among other things.\29\ The report highlighted that the
FirstNet Board, out of necessity, includes members with significant
ties to the telecommunications industry that make strategic decisions
regarding FirstNet's operations and, thus, are at increased risk of
encountering conflicts of interests. We believe that establishing and
evaluating adherence to Standards of Conduct may help FirstNet ensure
that all its personnel are held accountable for their actions and that
stakeholders maintain trust in its ability to be a good steward of
public funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Commerce OIG, First Responder Network Authority: FirstNet Must
Strengthen Management of Financial Disclosures and Monitoring of
Contracts, Final Report No. OIG-15-013-A (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 5,
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FirstNet Faces Difficult Decisions in Determining How to Pay for a
Nationwide Public Safety Network Estimated to Cost Billions
Cost of a Public Safety Network Estimated to Be at Least $12 Billion
over the First 10 Years
Various entities have estimated the cost to construct and operate a
nationwide network for public safety from a low of $12 billion to a
high of between $34 and $47 billion, over the first 10 years. As shown
in table 1, a variety of entities have developed cost estimates for a
public-safety broadband network, although they have used different
assumptions about the network's scope. Key assumptions influencing
these estimates include whether the network is constructed, operated,
or financed in partnership with commercial entities, and the number of
sites needed to provide the network's coverage. Our ongoing work has
found that differences among these estimates are difficult to identify
since some of the estimates do not explicitly state all of their
assumptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1.--Selected Cost Estimates for Constructing a Public-Safety Broadband Network
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up-Front
Coverage Cost per Site Deployment Total Costs,
(Percent of Sites (thousands) Costs First 10 Years
Population) (Billions) b (Billions) c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyren Call 2007 Yes 99 37,000 No estimate $18 d No estimate
Communications
Corporation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eisenach 2007 Yes 99 33,700 $600,000 No estimate $20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Communications 2010 Yes 99 44,800 $140,625 e $7 $12-16
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission No 99 44,800 $350,446 e $16 $34-47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hallahan and Peh a 2010 Yes 99 19,400 $500,000 $10 $18
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No 99 22,200 $500,000 $11 $20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressional Budget 2011 Yes 95 45,000 No estimate No estimate $12
Office
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Sachs, Elizabeth, on behalf of Cyren Call Communications Corporation, In the Matter of Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Broadband, Ex Parte
Presentation to Federal Communications Commission, June 3, 2007; Eisenach, Jeffrey, Due Diligence: Risk Factors in the Frontline Proposal, June 28,
2007; Federal Communications Commission, A Broadband Network Cost Model: A Basis for Public Funding Essential to Bringing Nationwide Interoperable
Communications to America's First Responders, OBI Technical Working Paper No.2, May 2010; Hallahan, Ryan, and John M. Peha, Quantifying the Costs of a
Nationwide Public Safety Wireless Network, Telecommunications Policy, 34 (2010); and Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate: S. 911 Public Safety
Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act, July 2011.
a The figures are presented here as they were reported at the time of publication; that is, we did not adjust these figures for inflation.
b Estimates vary in scope, with some estimating the total cost and some only considering costs associated with the installation and operation of cell
sites and not the costs of the backbone network components, or the costs of network planning and administration.
c The total costs include both the up-front deployment costs plus ongoing costs, such as maintenance and operations, over the first 10 years.
d This estimate is described as including ``cumulative capital expenditures.'' It is not clear whether this only includes up-front deployments costs or
also some (or all) maintenance and operations over the first 10 years.
e This is an average cost across all proposed sites. The Federal Communications Commission estimated different costs for sites in urban, suburban, and
rural areas.
Various Factors Will Influence Cost of FirstNet's Public Safety Network
Our preliminary analysis indicates that cost estimates
notwithstanding, various factors will influence the cost of
constructing and operating FirstNet's public safety network, including
(1) the business model used, especially the extent of commercial
partnerships; (2) use of existing infrastructure; (3) efforts to ensure
network reliability; and (4) network coverage.
Extent of Commercial Partnerships
FirstNet's business model, especially the extent to which it
partners with commercial carriers or other private enterprises, will
influence the cost to construct and operate the public safety network.
The 2012 act gives FirstNet the authority to engage in a variety of
commercial partnerships.\30\ In a partnership, public safety and
commercial users could share the network's infrastructure and spectrum,
with public safety given priority to all network capacity during
emergencies.\31\ Some public safety stakeholders we spoke with
maintained the need for FirstNet to work with commercial partners in
building and operating the network for it to be financially
sustainable. One study also calculated that the value of serving both
commercial and public safety users is greater than the additional costs
to serve commercial users.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Pub. L. No. 112-96, Sec. 6206(c)(3), 126 Stat. 156, 214.
\31\ ``Priority'' transmission of calls and data is provided
through special enhancements embedded in telecommunications networks to
identify transmissions made by authorized users as higher priority than
those made by other users. These enhancements automatically place the
transmission higher in the queue over those made by other users.
\32\ Hallahan, Ryan and John M. Peha, The Business Case of a
Network that Serves both Public Safety and Commercial Subscribers,
Telecommunications Policy, 35 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Existing Infrastructure
The use of existing infrastructure will influence the cost to
construct and operate FirstNet's public safety network. Under
agreements to share existing wireless-network infrastructure, FirstNet
may be able to make use of, for example, cell towers, antennae,
cabling, radio-processing equipment, backup power facilities, and the
links between towers and the nearest communications hub, to the extent
economically desirable to do so. According to FCC estimates, capital
costs would be 2.5 times greater without this form of sharing. However,
the use of existing infrastructure can have limitations. For instance,
negotiating access to existing infrastructure can be a time-consuming
process--especially with government-owned or controlled facilities and
where multiple owners must be contracted with--ultimately slowing down
network deployment. For our ongoing work, we spoke with Swedish
officials about the public-safety communications network in their
country, and they told us that they sought to use existing
infrastructure to save costs when constructing their network, but faced
problems in their largest cities convincing tower owners to allow the
government to rent the towers.\33\ Furthermore, there may be a risk
when public safety relies on infrastructure owned by commercial
operators, particularly if it has to rely on a single provider in any
given location that can then charge high fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ This interoperable network in Sweden is called the ``Rakel''
network and is primarily used for voice communications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efforts to Ensure Network Reliability
FirstNet's approach to ensure the public safety network is safe,
secure, and resilient (that is, the overall reliability of the network)
will also influence the cost to construct the network. FirstNet is
required by the 2012 act to ``ensure the safety, security, and
resiliency of the network,'' \34\ and NPSTC has provided guidance to
FirstNet as it constructs and implements the network.\35\ If FirstNet
implements all of NPSTC's best practices, it will significantly add to
the cost of building the network. For example, transmission sites, such
as cell towers, should have back-up power sources when used for public
safety communications, according to NPSTC. Existing commercial sites,
however, generally do not have such backup, primarily to reduce costs
in extremely competitive markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Pub. L. No. 112-96, Sec. 6206(b)(2)(A), 126 Stat. 156, 212.
\35\ NPSTC, Defining Public Safety Grade Systems and Facilities
(Littleton, CO: May 22, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Coverage
The public safety network's coverage will also influence the cost
to construct and operate it. The 2012 act requires FirstNet to
establish a ``nationwide'' network, but does not define the level of
coverage that constitutes ``nationwide.'' \36\ Generally speaking,
increasing the area covered by the network, as well as the extent to
which coverage penetrates buildings, increases the amount of
infrastructure needed, and thus the cost of the network. It may be
relatively affordable, for example, to cover large segments of the
population concentrated in relatively small areas. Providing coverage
outside dense metropolitan areas can be particularly expensive. One
study has shown that a nationwide public-safety broadband network could
generate much more revenue than the network costs in urban areas, but
less revenue than costs in rural areas.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ FirstNet sought input into this matter in its September 2014
RFI.
\37\ Hallahan and Peha, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FirstNet Faces Difficult Decisions about User Fees and Commercial
Partnerships in Determining How to Become Self-Funding
Our preliminary analysis suggests that, although FirstNet has
various revenue options that it is authorized to use to become self-
funding, it is unclear how FirstNet will use those authorities. As the
cost estimates above illustrate, FirstNet's network will likely cost
tens of billions of dollars to construct and initially operate. To meet
the costs of building and maintaining the network, the 2012 act
authorizes FirstNet to generate revenue through user fees and
commercial partnerships, the latter of which can involve secondary use
of the network for non-public safety services.
User Fees
FirstNet can generate revenue by charging public safety entities a
user fee to gain access to the network. According to stakeholders we
spoke with and surveyed for our ongoing work, demand for FirstNet's
public safety network is significant,\38\ but the following factors
could hinder adoption of the network and thus FirstNet's ability to
collect user fee revenue:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ More than 75 percent of survey respondents noted that the
network would be ``very useful'' to emergency management, emergency
medical services, fire services, and law enforcement public safety
entities in their state.
Fee size. If FirstNet's user fee is too high, it could
hinder public safety adoption, and if it is too low, it could
bring in too little revenue. Numerous stakeholders we spoke
with noted that FirstNet's cost would play a role in whether
they adopt the public safety network and that user fees must be
competitive with existing commercial services. While low user
fees would be attractive to public safety entities and
therefore may increase adoption, they would also bring in a
relatively smaller amount of revenue per user. As a FirstNet
Senior Program Manager reported in December 2014, there is a
trade-off with low user fees between adoption and the network's
financial sustainability. Some stakeholders also noted that the
cost of equipment and devices needed to access the network
could limit adoption, especially since public safety entities
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
are continuing to invest in their LMR networks.
User base. While a large user base can potentially bring in
significant user fee revenue, it could be challenging to
manage. The 2012 act established that FirstNet's primary
customers will be entities that provide ``public safety
services.'' \39\ How FirstNet interprets ``public safety
services,'' as established in the 2012 act, will expand or
contract the potential sources of revenue.\40\ As one public
safety official we spoke with noted, the network has more value
to public safety entities when there are more users on it,
because entities will all be able to communicate with each
other. A large user base, however, can require priority and
preemption rules, if certain users are to have privileged
access to the network. According to some public safety
officials we spoke with, such rules can be difficult to
establish among public safety entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Pub. L. No. 112-96, Sec. 6001(26),126 Stat. 156, 204.
\40\ FirstNet proposed some interpretations of these definitions in
its September 2014 Public Notice.
Coverage. Widespread network coverage can attract more
users, and thus user fee revenue, but is expensive to construct
and maintain. Some of the public safety entities we spoke with
said that the network's coverage would play a role in whether
they adopt the public safety network, noting in particular that
the coverage should be at least as good as existing commercial
services. One public safety entity we spoke with said that
existing commercial coverage is inadequate, while two other
entities said that commercial service can become unusable
during large events because of the number of users on the
network. However, as noted above, providing extensive coverage
can be very costly. Indeed, a few SPOCs noted in survey
responses that providing rural coverage in their states will be
challenging, with one commenting that ``it is inconceivable
that FirstNet will be able to deploy a terrestrial network in
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the vast areas that are unpopulated or sparsely populated.''
Reliability. Although FirstNet is required to construct a
resilient network, practices to ensure this can be costly. Some
public safety officials we spoke with said that the network's
reliability would play a role in whether they adopt the public
safety network. A few officials specifically said that if the
network did not reliably work when first utilized by public
safety, adoption would suffer, since public safety has a low
tolerance for unreliable technology. However, as noted above,
ensuring reliability requires significant capital expenses.
Commercial Partnerships
Our ongoing work also found that FirstNet can generate revenue
through commercial partnerships, but the extent of commercial interest
in these partnerships, and thus the value of this authority for
FirstNet, is unknown.\41\ Under the 2012 act, FirstNet can receive
payment for the use of the public safety network's capacity by non-
public safety users as well as use of the network's infrastructure.\42\
The value of secondary access to the network's capacity depends in part
on the availability of the spectrum, which itself will be determined by
the capacity available given the network's design. According to one
major carrier we spoke with, no business is likely to enter into a
partnership with FirstNet because its public-safety user base has not
been defined, and thus the network capacity available to secondary
(commercial) users is unknown. According to this carrier, the risk
would be too high for a commercial entity to enter into an agreement
without knowing exactly how the entity will be able to use FirstNet's
network. If public safety preempts all commercial traffic, then the
commercial entity will struggle to generate income from this venture
and may lose favor with its customers. However, another major carrier
we spoke with maintained that FirstNet will have to partner with at
least one commercial carrier to be financially sustainable and that
given the significant investments in Long Term Evolution (LTE)
infrastructure made by commercial carriers, FirstNet would do well to
utilize some of this infrastructure through commercial partnerships.
Although the historic Advanced Wireless Services spectrum auction FCC
concluded in late January 2015 could indicate significant demand for
spectrum capacity among commercial carriers, the extent of carriers'
interest in partnering with FirstNet is not fully known. While there
may be some benefits in partnering with FirstNet, companies may also
prefer to compete directly with FirstNet with their own public safety
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ One study showed that, theoretically, the revenue to be
derived from secondary use of the spectrum is much greater than fees
from users of a public safety network. See Hallahan and Peha, 2011.
\42\ Pub. L. No. 112-96, Sec. 6208(a)(1), 126 Stat. 156, 215.
FirstNet tentatively concluded in its September 2014 Public Notice that
multiple commercial partners could coexist and utilize FirstNet
spectrum in a given area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Early Builder Projects Are Providing Lessons, FirstNet Has Not
Developed a Plan to Evaluate Them
Early Builder Projects Have Learned Lessons As They Develop Public
Safety
Networks
As part of our ongoing work, we spoke with officials from the five
early builder projects and the three canceled projects to determine
what lessons they have learned that may be useful to FirstNet as it
develops the nationwide public safety network. Specifically, the
officials identified lessons about (1) governance, (2) financing the
network, (3) conducting outreach, and (4) planning for network
deployment:
Governance
Early builder project officials described governance challenges
that FirstNet may face as the governing entity for the nationwide
network. For example, officials from one project told us some public
safety entities may not have a clear understanding of FirstNet's goals
and plans. The officials told us localities are willing to participate
in the public safety network, but FirstNet will face difficulty in
establishing timely technical decisions and effective policies that
keep pace with local enthusiasm to participate. The officials said
FirstNet can address this challenge by setting expectations about what
the network will provide, including the specific intent, purpose, and
planned capabilities.
Financing the Network
Officials from the early builder projects also learned lessons
related to financing a new public safety network that could be
applicable to FirstNet. For example, officials from one project told us
they will face sustainability challenges due to the limited number of
users that will be able to utilize their network. According to the
officials, their project will not be able to charge their users enough
to make the operations sustainable without pricing the users out of the
services. The officials told us a possible way to address this
challenge would be to expand the service to public safety entities in
neighboring metropolitan areas and airport service areas that have
established broadband infrastructure.
Conducting Outreach
Early builder project officials cited lessons they learned for
conducting outreach while developing their public safety networks.
According to officials working with one of the projects, network
coverage will be a challenging outreach topic and FirstNet must be
prepared to explain the coverage strategy for each state. The officials
said most public safety officials in their state are aware that network
coverage is typically provided through a myriad of approaches such as
permanent infrastructure, mobile ``deployables,'' and satellites.\43\
However, the officials noted, until FirstNet sets clear expectations on
those approaches, state stakeholders for the public safety network may
face difficulties holding constructive conversations about which
coverage solutions are the most feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Mobile deployables can also be referred to as ``deployable
networks.'' A deployable network typically includes ``deployable
assets'' such as ``Cells on Wheels'' that provide localized wireless
network service to areas where coverage is minimal or compromised.
These assets typically provide fully functional service via vehicles
such as trailers, vans, and trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning for Network Deployment
Officials from the early builder projects as well as the canceled
public safety projects also described lessons they learned about
planning their network's deployment that could benefit FirstNet. An
official from one of the canceled projects said his team faced several
challenges including local zoning conditions that impacted project
schedule and cost, a newly-passed city code that required towers to
withstand higher wind loads which increased costs, and commercial
competitors lowering their subscription rates to compete with the
planned public safety network. Officials from an ongoing project told
us their project initially identified network build-out sites but
learned that environmental assessments would need to be completed for
each site, which would threaten the project's planned schedule. To
address the challenge, the project narrowed its build-out site pool to
exclude marsh lands and other areas with obstructive tree lines and
include publicly-owned sites such as police and fire stations. With the
publicly-owned sites identified, project officials worked with their
state's legislature to pass an exemption to state environmental
reviews. The official from the project told us that an important lesson
learned is to thoroughly understand all of the process steps and risks
prior to plan execution.
FirstNet Has Processes in Place to Identify Early Builder Project
Lessons but Has Not Developed a Written Evaluation Plan
Our preliminary results indicate that FirstNet has taken steps to
collect and evaluate information and lessons learned from the early
builder projects, but could do more to ensure that the information and
lessons are properly evaluated. Specifically, FirstNet has taken steps
to identify the data and information it will collect from the early
builder projects. As noted above, FirstNet entered into agreements with
the projects that permit their use of FirstNet's spectrum. Under these
agreements, in exchange for spectrum use, the early builders agree to
conduct specific activities on their networks, also known as key
learning conditions; develop a Key Learning Conditions Plan with
FirstNet;\44\ and provide FirstNet with quarterly reporting on their
project's use of FirstNet's spectrum, progress achieving project
milestones, and in some cases, the experiences of their network users.
In October 2014, FirstNet provided the projects with quarterly report
templates, instructions, and timing for completing the reports.
Additionally, FirstNet intends to gain knowledge from the projects
through contractors who have been assigned to each project to collect
and log formal and informal lessons, and through weekly meetings
FirstNet officials told us they hold. Finally, in April 2014 FirstNet
authorized the PSAC to establish an Early Builder Working Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ FirstNet told us the plans identify the key learning condition
activities, including roles and responsibilities and the information,
lessons, reports, and other deliverables expected under the agreements.
Plans have been drafted for the five early builder projects. The plan
for the project in Adams County, Colorado is pending completion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although FirstNet has taken these steps, we are concerned that it
lacks a detailed data-analysis plan to track the performance and
results of the early builder projects. For the early builder projects,
their performance and results are captured in the observations and
lessons learned reported to FirstNet and identified by consultants. We
have previously found that a well-developed evaluation plan for
projects like the early builder projects can help ensure that agencies
obtain the information necessary to make effective program and policy
decisions.\45\ Such a plan should include, among other things, a
detailed data-analysis plan to track performance and evaluate the
project's final results. Even though FirstNet staff and contractors
remain in close contact with the projects, without a plan to track
those projects, it is unclear how FirstNet intends to evaluate the
projects' observations and lessons and determine whether or how the
lessons are addressed. As a result, we believe that FirstNet could miss
opportunities to leverage key lessons related to governance, finance,
outreach, and network deployment. Given that the early builder projects
are doing on a regional and local level what FirstNet must eventually
do on a national level, a complete evaluation plan that includes a
detailed data-analysis plan could play a key role in FirstNet's
strategic planning and program management, providing feedback on both
program design and execution. Furthermore, such a plan could provide
FirstNet officials the opportunity to make informed midcourse changes
as it plans for the public safety network, and facilitate transparency
and accountability for FirstNet's decision-making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ GAO-09-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the
Committee, this concludes my prepared remarks. I am happy to respond to
any questions that you or other Members may have at this time.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Goldstein.
Ms. Swenson.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN SWENSON, CHAIRWOMAN,
FIRST RESPONDER NETWORK AUTHORITY (FirstNet)
Ms. Swenson. Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and
members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here to
testify on behalf of the First Responder Network Authority. I
really welcome the opportunity to brief you on the progress in
the development of the interoperable broadband, safety
broadband network. It is also a pleasure to appear today with
my fellow panel members. And I'd also like to welcome several
members of the public safety community who are with us here
today to hear about their network. So I appreciate everybody
coming with us today.
As you know, we experienced growing pains in the early days
of our existence. With only board members in the FirstNet
organization until mid-2013 and an executive team not in place
until the latter part of that same calendar year, we were
dependent on the support from other agencies, in particular
NTIA. We worked very hard to complete shore up the areas of
weakness and to take on as much responsibility as we can and I
am very confident that today you would find that our processes
and procedures in line with expectations.
With an executive team in place toward the end of 2013, we
developed and publicly communicated our strategic roadmap in
March 2014 and have been on-pace without major milestones ever
since. Specifically, we've initiated the formal consultation
meetings. We've issued an RFI and the first public notice and
comment in September of 2014. On Monday of this week, we
released our second public notice and comment. And finally, the
Board is on track to address the draft RFP later this month.
From a consultation and stakeholder perspective, we've held
outreach meetings and presentations in over 275 engagements
since the beginning of Fiscal Year 2014, connecting FirstNet
with nearly 45,000 stakeholders. We've held or scheduled 43
initial consultation meetings, we've conducted 15 state
consultations, and we've scheduled meetings with an additional
28 states. We've also held a variety of forums beyond the state
consultation meetings with single points-of-contacts in you
states including weekly e-mails, monthly phone calls, quarterly
webinars, and upcoming, on April 14 and 15, we will host an in-
person meeting in where we're going to have all 56 state and
single point-of-contacts attending if they can make it.
I am, frankly, very proud of the organization and what it
has accomplished and, also, where they are in terms of their
readiness for what lies ahead. It is an extremely committed and
dedicated team working on a project that is unprecedented,
complicated, and one that faces headwinds each and every day.
What no one really sees is the toll that this takes on the
organization and the people in it who are working so hard, and
I have to tell you I worry about that a lot.
At FirstNet, we're taking on this historic and monumental
task to deploy nationwide network. Nothing of this size and
scope has been attempted before and we are constrained by a
number of factors that are, frankly, out of our control. Coming
from the private sector, I have found the Federal rules and
processes extremely challenging at times, this undoubtedly
slows our ability to move as expeditiously as we and others
would like. I know there are some in the stakeholder community
who would have liked to see more progress at this point, I
would too, but the fact remains we are a Federal entity subject
to Federal rules and regulations. To be sure, we are making
great strides towards our mission.
Still, I hope you understand why we may not be moving as
quickly as everyone expects. We have discussed with Secretary
Pritzker areas where processes and cycle times need to be
improved and she has committed the necessary resources within
the Department of Commerce to make those improvements. We are
very appreciative of her support as it could make a very big
difference to our effectiveness.
The first two areas we are exploring are the hiring process
and procurement. To the degree that FirstNet can assume
responsibility for functions like hiring and procurement, much
like we have for finance, I believe that having people
dedicated to these functions whose first priority is FirstNet
would enable us to move things along quickly and efficiently
while still adhering to the Federal rules and regulations under
which we operate.
I also want to mention that we are working hard to build a
culture at FirstNet that is appropriate to serve our public
safety community. Our first responders are on-duty 24 by seven.
So we need to be there to support them. This means working with
a laser focus commitment to serve and to have a sense of
urgency doing whatever is required to support our public safety
community.
In summary, we have accomplished a tremendous amount and
are building a reputation of doing what we say we are going to
do. We have much more to complete but I believe that we are on
the right path with a dedicated team working hard on the
mission.
Thank you for allowing me to be here today to talk about
FirstNet. I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Swenson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Susan Swenson, Chairwoman, First Responder
Network Authority (FirstNet)
Introduction
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and all Members of the Senate
Commerce Committee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
appear before the Committee to discuss FirstNet and the progress we are
making toward the deployment of an interoperable nationwide public
safety broadband network (network). I also want to thank all of the
Members of this Committee who were pivotal in creating FirstNet. We
look forward to your continued support and to working with the
Committee as FirstNet continues to carry out our vital mission to bring
the power of broadband wireless communications to public safety
personnel across the country.
Background
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-
96) (Act) established FirstNet as an independent authority within the
Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA). Under the Act, FirstNet is tasked with ensuring
the deployment and operation of a sustainable, interoperable broadband
network for public safety entities across the country and within U.S.
territories. FirstNet intends to provide cutting-edge prioritized and
preemptive wireless broadband communications to millions of first
responders at the local, state, tribal, and Federal levels. Using a
dedicated nationwide wireless broadband network, FirstNet will provide
a ubiquitous solution to decades-long interoperability and
communications challenges and help keep our communities and first
responders safer with advanced communications services, devices, and
applications.
FirstNet's goal of deploying the network to meet the needs of first
responders is a matter of critical importance for public safety. While
the task ahead will not be easy, FirstNet is developing the necessary
leadership, staff, and support from states, tribes, public safety, and
other key stakeholders to make this network a reality for first
responders and the public who calls on them in its time of need.
Overarching Strategic Goals
To guide us, we are pursuing the following four strategic goals:
Explore and build strong partnerships with local, state,
tribal, and Federal jurisdictions;
Establish a high-performing organization and a culture of
excellence;
Ensure all resources are used efficiently to accomplish
FirstNet's mission and demonstrate leadership towards self-
sustainability to all external stakeholders; and
Ensure the deployment and operation of a reliable,
interoperable, and survivable nationwide Long Term Evolution
(LTE) broadband network for public safety.
FirstNet is taking on an important and difficult task, but with the
support of this Committee, Congress as a whole, the public safety
community, the private sector, and local, state, tribal, and Federal
leaders, we will succeed in accomplishing our mission. I would like to
briefly discuss our recent accomplishments and describe where we are
heading in an effort to support our Nation's public safety personnel.
Strategic Roadmap and Foundational Network Planning
FirstNet is focused on what it will take from outreach, technical,
and financial perspectives to build and maintain the network long-term.
Much of our planning is embodied in FirstNet's Strategic Program
Roadmap Executive Summary approved by the FirstNet Board in March 2014
\1\. In that document, we outlined the milestones we planned to
accomplish over the next year, which included:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The FirstNet Strategic Program Roadmap Executive Summary can be
accessed at: http://firstnet.gov/content/march-board-directors-meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
beginning formal in-person state consultations;
releasing a draft request for comprehensive network
proposals (RFP) for comment;
releasing draft requests for certain network and equipment
services proposals for comment; and
initiating a public notice and comment process on certain
program procedures, policies, and statutory interpretations.
FirstNet has made significant progress on these milestones. We:
Distributed 56 state consultation packages on April 30,
2014. As of February 25, 2015, we have received 47 completed
state checklists;
Launched formal state consultations in July 2014 and have
met with 15 states thus far, with an additional 24 scheduled
through the summer;
Published a Request for Information (RFI) with a draft
Statement of Objectives for our comprehensive Request for
Proposals (RFP) and received 122 comments; and
Released a public notice seeking comment on several key
program policies and statutory interpretations in the fall of
2014 and received 63 responses.
The progress we made in recent months is a tremendous start, but
much work remains to be done. We will continue to work directly with
the states and territories throughout our formal consultation process.
Also, we will work to generate additional feedback from, local, state,
and tribal public safety agencies, Federal stakeholders, the Public
Safety Advisory Committee (PSAC), and the vendor community to ensure
openness and transparency throughout our process.
Consultation and Outreach
Our efforts to interact with the local, state, tribal, and Federal
stakeholders are a centerpiece of the FirstNet mission and are an
essential requirement of the Act. Our local, state, and tribal planning
consultation process, coordinated through the governor-designated state
single points of contact (SPOCs), ensures that FirstNet obtains key
information from the public safety community and leadership of all 56
states and territories. The objective of this process is to develop
detailed state plans that address the unique communications needs of
each state's public safety entities. These individual plans will inform
and empower each state to choose to either have FirstNet deploy the
radio access network (RAN) within its borders or to assume
responsibility to build, operate and maintain its own state RAN and
integrate it into the remainder of the nationwide network, as
prescribed in the Act.
In order to execute on this statutory requirement, FirstNet has
built a consultation strategy that focuses on several key objectives,
ensuring that the consultation process is:
iterative, giving states and other stakeholders
opportunities to provide feedback and input in multiple ways
and on an ongoing basis throughout;
collaborative, so that we are working together with the
localities, states, tribes, territories, and other stakeholders
to collect information and data that will be useful for the
deployment of the network;
focused on critical elements, ensuring that we maximize the
states' and taxpayers' investments in FirstNet; and
informative to the development of FirstNet RFPs, the
delivery of the state plans, and the design, construction, and
operation of the network.
FirstNet anticipates holding in-person meetings with the 56 states
and territories over the remainder of 2015 and beyond, and will
continue to work closely with them as FirstNet moves into the phase of
delivering wireless broadband service to their public safety personnel.
FirstNet held the first formal consultation meeting in July 2014
with leaders from the state of Maryland, including members from the
Governor's office and executive agencies, the Maryland State Police,
staff from the Maryland legislature, and other public safety leaders
throughout the state. We learned valuable lessons about the state's
emergency broadband communications needs, the state's perspective on
the planning and deployment of the FirstNet network, and how we can
build a strong partnership going forward.
Additionally, over the past year, FirstNet has conducted focused
outreach with individual tribes, tribal associations, and Federal
tribal government liaisons and worked with the PSAC to establish a
Tribal Working Group. These discussions have resulted in positive
dialogue and a better understanding of tribal needs. FirstNet hired a
tribal outreach lead to assist with focused tribal outreach efforts, as
well as a Federal Preservation Officer to address compliance with the
National Historic Preservation Act.
While we are pleased with this progress in forging key partnerships
through consultation, much more needs to be done. To that end, FirstNet
is seeking to hire 10 regional teams to ensure sufficient resources in
support of our outreach and state consultation efforts. These FirstNet
regions cover the same state, territory, and tribal jurisdictions as
the 10 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regions. Our teams
will span the Nation to participate in state consultation meetings,
join various regional and state governing body meetings and association
conferences, and meet one-on-one with the SPOCs and public safety
agencies representing potential FirstNet network users. FirstNet
expects to hire these 10 regional leads in 2015.
Complementing this effort is FirstNet's robust outreach and
education strategy, committed to reaching public safety personnel
across all levels of government and through national and state
associations. In the past year, we have addressed over 20,000
stakeholders at various conferences, meetings, and speaking events.
We are also working closely with Federal agencies to drive
collaboration and potential use of the network. In 2014, FirstNet
formalized a relationship with the Emergency Communications
Preparedness Center (ECPC) to increase outreach with Federal
stakeholders. The ECPC is the Federal interagency group focused on
emergency communications, and is administered by the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security's Office of Emergency Communications. FirstNet
participated in many ECPC meetings over the past year to keep members
informed of FirstNet activities and to discuss how best to collaborate
to ensure Federal input is incorporated into the state plans and
overall network deployment. Additionally, FirstNet's Federal outreach
team held an initial formal consultation meeting with Federal agencies
on January 21, 2015, where FirstNet staff engaged Federal stakeholders
in discussions about outreach efforts, Federal coverage needs and
objectives, and security requirements for the network. Finally,
FirstNet has leveraged its Federal partners' expertise in the area of
cybersecurity by utilizing recommendations and resources from the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security's Office of Cybersecurity and
Communications in our planning efforts.
Additionally, FirstNet's PSAC, chaired by Chief Harlin McEwen, and
composed of key public safety stakeholders, will continue to be an
important resource as we pursue our mission. Public safety's input via
the PSAC is vital at all stages of the network development so that it
will be tailored to the needs of the end users--America's first
responders and other public safety entities.
The PSAC has to date collaboratively developed and delivered the
following documents to FirstNet:
Human Factors Report (November 2013): Analyzes the long-
range impacts of the network on the way law enforcement, fire,
and EMS operate and considers the impact the network will have
on their duties once it is built and operating.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The FirstNet PSAC Human Factors Report, available at: http://
www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/PSAC%20Human%20Factors%20Report-
FINAL.pdf.
Potential Users--National Public Safety Broadband Network
(NPSBN) (July 2014): Identifies and categorizes lists of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
potential network users.
Use Cases for Interfaces, Applications, and Capabilities for
the NPSBN (July 2014): Documents envisioned use cases for
interfaces, applications, and capabilities for the network.
Issues that the PSAC is currently working on at FirstNet's request
include the development of a proposed priority and preemption framework
for the FirstNet network, and an analysis of the technical requirements
of a broadband network dedicated to public safety entities.
We plan to continue to leverage the PSAC's experience to help
inform key capabilities and functions of the network.
Organization and Leadership
In August 2012, the Secretary of Commerce fulfilled the statutory
requirement of appointing the FirstNet Board. As required by law, the
members have specialized knowledge, experience, and expertise from a
variety of public safety, telecommunications, and financial backgrounds
needed to develop the network. I was appointed as a Member of the Board
at its inception, and I took over as Chairwoman in May 2014.
In September 2014, five new Board members joined the organization
and we formally welcomed them during our September 2014 Board meeting.
Those individuals are:
Chris Burbank, Chief of Police, Salt Lake City Police
Department;
James H. Douglas, former Governor of Vermont;
Annise Parker, Mayor, City of Houston, Texas;
Frank Plastina, technology executive, North Carolina; and
Richard Stanek, Sheriff, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Along with the Board, FirstNet has hired key executives to guide
the organization. TJ Kennedy has been serving as acting Executive
Director and is responsible for day-to-day operations of the FirstNet
organization. We have also built out our Chief Technology, Chief
Financial, Chief Administrative, outreach, and legal teams during the
past year, leveraging experience from both the private and public
sectors.
Deployment and Operation of the Network
FirstNet also is actively conducting extensive market research to
gain insight into the capabilities, opportunities, risks, and
innovative business partnerships in the market today to support the
construction of the network.
A. Requests for Information (RFI) and Draft Statement of Objectives
(SOO)
From April 2013 through April 2014, FirstNet released 12 RFIs that
focused on individual components of the network, including network
partnering and RAN provisioning, antenna systems, microwave backhaul
equipment, deployables, satellite service, enhanced packet core,
transmission/transport, data centers, network management centers,
network service platforms, devices, and applications. The results of
these 12 RFIs, and the findings from numerous market research vendor
meetings conducted by FirstNet, were compiled into an initial market
research report that ultimately led to the development and release of
the 13th RFI in September 2014. This RFI focused on soliciting feedback
for a comprehensive network solution as opposed to individual network
components and included a full draft SOO.
On September 17, 2014, the FirstNet Board authorized its release.
The RFI sought input from industry on some of the key approaches
FirstNet is considering before finalizing a draft comprehensive network
RFP. The RFI included questions on network build out, deployment,
operations, and maintenance; cost considerations and financial
sustainability; speed to market; system hardening and resiliency; user
priority and preemption; customer care and marketing; and general
compliance with the Act.
The draft SOO has helped industry better understand FirstNet's key
program objectives to deploy, operate, and maintain the network.
FirstNet is taking an objectives-based approach to the procurement,
rather than a requirements-driven approach, in order to promote
flexibility in achieving our goals while helping us reduce the
complexity we face in managing and integrating the diverse set of
components needed to meet our mission. FirstNet will use the comments
we receive on the RFI and draft SOO to refine the acquisition approach
and draft the comprehensive network RFP.
As previously referenced, we received 122 responses to this RFI and
were very encouraged with the interest it generated. All responses have
been kept confidential to allow the RFI respondents to provide
comprehensive and forthright solutions, facilitating FirstNet's ability
to thoroughly develop the next step in the procurement phase--the
drafting of the RFP. It is important to note that the responses came
not only from the vendor community, but also from several state, local,
and public safety entities. We take this as another positive sign that
the public safety community is highly engaged and supportive of our
mission.
FirstNet is statutorily required to engage in an open, transparent,
and competitive RFP process, and the publication of this latest RFI is
an important step in meeting this obligation. This RFI/draft SOO
continues FirstNet's market research efforts and acts as a precursor to
the publication of a draft RFP and a final RFP anticipated to be
released by early 2016.
B. Public Notice and Comment
In September 2014, FirstNet also received Board approval to seek
public comment on its statutory interpretations. As a new entity
operating under a unique statutory construct, FirstNet is confronted
with many complex legal issues and terms that will have a material
impact on our RFPs and our operations going forward. Although FirstNet
is exempt from the procedural requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), we believe it is important to solicit public
comments on certain technical, economic, and foundational legal issues
to inform our approach to our ongoing operations and to further consult
with our stakeholders. Specifically, we sought comments on issues that
included the interpretation of the definitions of core and RAN; the
definition of public safety entities; secondary users; rural areas;
user and other fees; and finally, the minimum technical requirements of
the network.
We received more than 60 responses to this public notice and have
continued to review and digest the information provided in each
response. We received responses from a broad group of stakeholders,
including commercial carriers, vendors, state, local, and tribal
governments, and various associations that represent public safety
interests.
On March 9, 2015, the FirstNet Board approved the release of a
second public notice seeking comments on management's additional
preliminary interpretations of FirstNet's enabling legislation. The
primary topics covered include technical requirements relating to
equipment and device use on the network, the nature and application of
required network policies, FirstNet's presentation of state plans, and
the rights and responsibilities of states choosing to build and operate
their own RANs.
We believe public comments on these topics will provide important
inputs into a draft comprehensive network RFP and on FirstNet
operations, including on issues that will significantly impact the
economics of the network. The public notice will also inform our
stakeholders of our preliminary thinking on critical decisions relating
to the deployment and operation of the network. The responses to this
notice will be made part of the public record and be available at
www.regulations.gov for public review.
C. Additional Technical Development and PSCR Collaboration
In addition to leading the analysis of the industry and public
responses to the comprehensive network RFI, which will inform a
comprehensive draft RFP, the FirstNet technical team has been focusing
on a number of core areas:
Formal standards development;
Testing and evaluation; and
Modeling and simulation.
We have been working very closely with the Department of Commerce's
team at the Public Safety Communications Research (PSCR) labs to share
ideas and data and to eliminate information silos. Working directly
with PSCR has allowed FirstNet to make significant progress with the
Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), the worldwide standards
body for LTE, on ways in which LTE standards can meet public safety's
unique needs.\3\ As a result of this collaboration, FirstNet has helped
to develop broad coalitions that have pushed for the prioritization of
public safety standards development in worldwide LTE standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The standards body through which we are working is The 3rd
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). According to the 3GPP website,
``3GPP unites [six] telecommunications standard development
organizations (ARIB, ATIS, CCSA, ETSI, TTA, TTC) and provides a stable
environment to produce the Reports and Specifications that define 3GPP
technologies.'' 3GPP website, ``About 3GPP.'' available at: http://
www.3gpp.org/about-3gpp/about-3gpp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the FirstNet technical team has assisted in validating
certain key assumptions within the FirstNet Strategic Program Roadmap
Summary, including the modeling of cell site location nationwide and
the amount of excess network capacity that might be available for
secondary use.
FirstNet will continue to work with PSCR throughout the development
of the network. We have already seen tremendous benefit from our
cooperative relationship and we look forward to continuing this
productive collaboration.
Early Builder Public Safety Projects
FirstNet has executed five spectrum manager lease agreements
(SMLAs), with Adams County in Colorado,\4\ the State of New Jersey,\5\
the State of New Mexico, the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable
Communications System Authority (LA-RICS), and the State of Texas
(allowing for public safety broadband network service in Harris
County). As a result of these agreements, FirstNet now is working
closely with five early builder projects to gather lessons that will
help drive efficiencies and better understanding of key factors
important to the design and development of the network.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Adams County Communications Center, Inc.
\5\ State of New Jersey Office of Information Technology.
\6\ Four of these projects are funded through NTIA's Broadband
Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) grants that were awarded prior
to passage of the Act. The Harris County project was funded through a
pre-Act Department of Homeland Security grant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each of these projects is detailed in depth in the attached FY 2014
Annual Report to Congress, attached to this testimony for your
reference.
Culture of Compliance
Over the past year, FirstNet has grown significantly in our
organizational structure, and this growth has provided greater
resources, rigor, and oversight in the management of our operations. By
hiring senior managers and staff during FY 2014, FirstNet has
implemented policies and procedures that provide clear direction and
structure for the organization. Our FY 2014 Annual Report to Congress
goes into detail on the steps that we have taken to strengthen our
compliance processes.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/
Annual%20Report_FY2014_FINAL_3_3_15
.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FirstNet has also incorporated lessons learned from an Inspector
General (OIG) report examining certain processes relating to Board
member financial disclosure filings and identification of potential
conflicts of interest and procurement oversight practices.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ On December 5, 2014, the Department of Commerce's OIG released
a report entitled ``FirstNet Must Strengthen Management of Financial
Disclosures and Monitoring of Contracts.'' Available at: http://
www.oig.doc.gov/Pages/FirstNet-Must-Strengthen-Management-of-Financial-
Disclosures-and-Monitoring-of-Contracts.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FirstNet has a positive working relationship with the OIG, and we
look forward to continuing our open and constructive coordination with
this office.
Conclusion
I am grateful to the Committee for the opportunity to update you on
FirstNet's progress. As you can see, FirstNet continues its efforts to
meet statutory obligations, partner with those who will use and benefit
from the network, and develop a business plan that will provide
innovative broadband services to public safety personnel on a long-
term, self-funded basis.
FirstNet is committed to achieving our objectives, but we can only
do so with the support of Congress, public safety, locals, states,
tribal jurisdictions, and our other stakeholders. This is a network
that is urgently needed to increase the safety and capabilities of all
public safety personnel and protect the American people, and we are
committed to delivering it.
Attachment
FirstNet, U.S. Department of Commerce, FY 2014: Annual Report to
Congress
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Swenson.
Mr. Zinser.
STATEMENT OF HON. TODD J. ZINSER, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Zinser. Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, members
of the Committee, we appreciate the opportunity to testify
today as the Committee examines FirstNet's progress and
challenges in establishing the national public safety broadband
network called for under the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012. Unlike the Nationwide Telecommunication
Network's currently available, which have been built by the
private sector, the act authorizes FirstNet to use a
substantial amount of public money, $7 billion, to build the
public safety network; making internal controls in compliance
with those internal controls all the more important.
There is no question that it is critically important for
our first responders nationwide to have state-of-the-art
communications and data capabilities at all times. Getting
there will be very challenging. Oversight at FirstNet is also
very challenging. At an April 23, 2013 FirstNet Board meeting,
a former Board member presented a resolution raising various
concerns about Board operations in decisionmaking, including
issues related to ethics and procurement.
In September 2013, a Special Review Committee, established
by the Board, issued a report that addressed issues of openness
and transparency, Board member's access to information, and
network planning. The report did not substantiate the concerns
of the former Board member.
In October 2013, the previous Board Chairman, with
concurrence with the Board, asked my office to take over the
inquiry into ethics and procurement. We issued our report in
December 2014. FirstNet did not wait for our report to begin
making important changes. For example, among other things,
FirstNet hired a Chief Council, established a compliance
program within the Office of Chief Council, and coordinated
with our office in developing a training program for its Board
members and staff.
Nonetheless, the results of our audit disclosed serious
problems. In the area of ethics, we found confidential and
public financial disclosure monitoring procedures were
inadequate, some Board members did not file timely disclosure
reports, and monitoring of potential conflicts of interest
needed improvement. For example, we found that one, now former
Board member did not file a required public financial
disclosure report and, when eventually doing so, did not
disclose a significant interest or position in a conflicting
company. Another, now former Board member submitted a required
public financial disclosure report 5 months late.
We consider the issue of financial disclosure reporting an
especially important internal control because the FirstNet
mission and membership of the Board necessarily include close
ties to the telecommunications industry creating a greater risk
of potential conflicts.
In the area of procurement, we found that FirstNet's
contracting practices lack transparent award, competition,
sufficient hiring and adequate monitoring of contracts. For
example, we found that the justification for a non-competitive
$8.4 million sole source contract was not adequate and that a
former Board member had inappropriately directed the
contractor, in advance of the contract award, to hire specific
individuals. This created the appearance that the contractor
was required to hire these individuals in order to be awarded
the contract.
Unduly close personal relationships with contractor
personnel can create the appearance of favoritism and may call
into question the integrity of the procurement process. We made
nine recommendations to address our findings. Some
recommendations have already been implemented and we continue
to work with the Department and FirstNet on implementation of
the remaining recommendations.
In our opinion, our findings were taken very seriously and
progress has been made since these issues were first raised
nearly 2 years ago. However, significant challenges remain.
Moving forward, the areas that we have identified as watch
items, which are well-known to FirstNet, include the following:
ensuring the adequacy of funding for a nationwide network;
determining the sufficiency of assets contributed to the
network by states, local governments and commercial entities;
incorporating lessons learned from the Broadband Technology
Opportunities Program; continuing to address identified
internal control weaknesses; and effectively executing the
consultation process. We are continuing our oversight of
FirstNet and we'll keep the Committee informed of FirstNet's
progress with respect to these challenges and any others we
identify through our audits and investigations.
Finally, I do wish to inform the Committee that the act did
not specifically authorize FirstNet funding to be dedicated to
OIG Oversight. As a result, for the past two years, we have
been working with the Department on funding our oversight. The
Fiscal Year 2016 budget requests an appropriation for OIG's
oversight work; however, the Committee may want to consider
whether it is more appropriate to authorize funding for OIG's
oversight from FirstNet's mandatory funds.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I'd be pleased
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zinser follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd J. Zinser, Inspector General,
U.S. Department of Commerce
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the
Committee:
We appreciate the opportunity to testify about the current status
of and challenges encountered by the First Responder Network Authority
(FirstNet). Effective oversight of FirstNet is critical. Our last three
Top Management Challenges (TMC) reports, for Fiscal Years (FY) 2013
through 2015, included addressing First Net's implementation of a
nationwide wireless broadband network for public safety users among the
most significant management and performance challenges facing the
Department of Commerce.
Our testimony today, about 3 years after the passage of the Middle
Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 \1\ that established
FirstNet, will focus on (I) FirstNet's work to date; (II) the Office of
Inspector General's (OIG's) completed oversight efforts; (III) OIG's
ongoing oversight of FirstNet; and (IV) the continuing challenges the
Department and FirstNet face in their efforts to ensure implementation
of a nationwide, interoperable, wireless broadband network for the
public safety community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L.
No. 112-96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Introduction to FirstNet
Establishment and purpose
Signed into law on February 22, 2012, the Middle Class Tax Relief
and Job Creation Act of 2012 (the Act) established FirstNet as an
independent authority within the Department of Commerce's National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The Act
authorized and allocated up to $7 billion in funding to NTIA for the
establishment of an interoperable Nationwide Public Safety Broadband
Network (NPSBN). This network is being built to address failures that
occurred in the United States on September 11, 2001, during the
terrorist attacks, in which first responders could not effectively
communicate.
FirstNet is governed by a 15-member Board consisting of the
Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and 12
nonpermanent members, including representatives from state and local
governments the public safety community, and technical fields. After a
public recruitment process, NTIA recommended candidates to the Acting
Secretary of Commerce, who announced the appointments in August 2012.
The Board's first meeting was held in September 2012. The Act calls for
the termination of FirstNet 15 years after its enactment, in 2027.\2\
However, no later than 10 years after the Act's enactment, in 2022, the
Comptroller General of the United States must submit to Congress a
report on what action Congress should take regarding this 2027 sunset
provision.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id. Sec. 6206(f).
\3\ Id. Sec. 6206(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization and initial implementation
For roughly the first year and a half of its existence, certain
FirstNet Board members functioned in management roles. The Board
eventually assembled a management team which assumed all operational
responsibilities (see section IV for further details). As of December
2014, FirstNet is organized with multiple program offices reporting to
a Deputy Executive Director along with divisions covering areas such as
procurement, user advocacy, financial operations, legal counsel,
information technology and administration.
So far, implementation of the NPSBN has occurred in the following
areas:
Establishing an organizational structure. FirstNet hired key
leadership and support staff for its day-to-day operations;
developed internal controls; established its headquarters in
Reston, Virginia, and its technical headquarters in Boulder,
Colorado; awarded contracts to obtain project management and
planning support, professional and subject matter support, and
network and business plan development; and signed interagency
agreements with other Federal entities to provide key services.
Conducting initial consultation and outreach. FirstNet
launched a website, conducted conference calls and webinars
with state single points of contact, coordinated with NTIA's
State and Local Implementation Grant Program (SLIGP) team, and
established its Public Safety Advisory Committee (PSAC).\4\ In
July 2014, FirstNet began to hold a series of state
consultation meetings. As of March 2, 2015, 15 of these state
consultations had been held.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
required FirstNet to establish the PSAC. It was created in February
2013 and consists of 40 members representing all disciplines of public
safety as well as state, territorial, tribal, and local governments.
See ``Public Safety Advisory Committee'' www.firstnet.gov/about/public-
safety-advisory-committee.
Finalizing a network design approach. In FY 2013, FirstNet
issued 12 requests for information (RFIs) seeking input from
vendors and other stakeholders; in FY 2014, it issued another
RFI--for assistance in developing a comprehensive network
acquisition strategy--and issued a public notice and request
for comments seeking input regarding preliminary
interpretations of FirstNet's enabling legislation. It also
established spectrum lease agreements with four public-safety
projects funded by NTIA's Broadband Technology Opportunities
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program (BTOP) grant awards program.
FirstNet's current focus is on the consultation and the
acquisition/request for proposal (RFP) processes.
Funding and expenditures
The Act authorizes up to $7 billion in funding to FirstNet for
deployment of the NPSBN. Initial funding of FirstNet will come from
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) spectrum auction proceeds. The
FCC spectrum auction, completed in January 2015, raised about $45
billion, enough to cover the $7 billion targeted for FirstNet under the
Act. FirstNet holds the single Public Safety Wireless Network License
for use of the 700 MHz D block spectrum and a pre-existing block of
public safety broadband spectrum.
Over the long term, FirstNet must be self-sustaining, through user
fees and revenue generated from agreements with third parties that will
leverage the value of the network capacity.
FirstNet's expenditures are expected to increase as it moves toward
building the NPSBN. FirstNet reported that it spent less than $250,000
in FY 2012. In FY 2013, it spent about $17 million, and in FY 2014, it
spent an estimated $26 million.\5\ In September 2014, FirstNet's Board
approved a budget of $120 million for FY 2015. Its FY 2016 budget
proposal is for approximately $160 million. This will provide funding
for approximately 150 full-time-equivalent positions, as well as
additional contracting and administrative support. FirstNet has entered
into various interagency agreements, hired support contractors and, in
September 2013, issued a $67.2 million blanket purchase agreement (BPA)
with three contractors for technical and subject matter expert support
tasks, to be issued over a 2-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Outlays, not expenses, were provided for FY 2012. FirstNet
began financial reporting in FY 2013. The FY 2014 results have not been
audited yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. OIG's FirstNet Oversight to Date
FirstNet's authorizing legislation did not contain a direct
provision for permanent, ongoing oversight. The law provides for two
required reviews: (1) an annual independent audit of FirstNet's
financial operations and condition and (2) a Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report, not later than 10 years after enactment of the
Act, or in the year 2022, on what action Congress should take regarding
FirstNet's 15-year sunset provision. Nonetheless, since FirstNet is
part of the Department of Commerce, and given the importance of this
program and substantial commitment of public funds, our office is
exercising oversight.
We have established a dedicated audit and evaluations team to
oversee the Department's and FirstNet's effort. In addition, we operate
a fraud, waste, and abuse hotline for the Department of Commerce
through which we have received complaints related to FirstNet and we
conduct follow-up on those complaints.
Building on OIG's experience with broadband and public safety
programs (e.g., the Public Safety Interoperable Communications grant
program and BTOP), the team's initial audit and evaluation activities
have included:
Tracking the progress of FirstNet by observing Board
proceedings, meeting with NTIA and FirstNet officials,
monitoring FirstNet and NTIA for key actions taken to implement
the network, and reviewing key program documents (e.g., Federal
Register notices and webinar slide decks)
Developing an initial risk assessment in FY 2013 and
reassessing risk as part of annual Department-wide assessments
Identifying FirstNet as a management challenge in our FYs
2013-2015 Top Management Challenges reports
Providing an information memorandum for FirstNet in February
2014 to identify FirstNet's initial management challenges
(including establishing an effective organization, fostering
cooperation among various state and local public safety
agencies, integrating existing grants to enhance public
communications capabilities into FirstNet, and creating a
nationwide long-term evolution network)
In addition, we issued a December 2014 audit report on ethics-and
procurement-related issues raised by a FirstNet Board member in
2013.\6\ At an April 23, 2013, FirstNet Board of Directors meeting, a
Board member presented a resolution raising various concerns,
including: (1) openness and transparency in decision making by the
FirstNet Board, (2) Board members access to records, (3) the
development of a plan for FirstNet's NPSBN, and (4) issues related to
ethics and procurement. In addition, the Board member met with the
Inspector General in July 2013 to discuss his concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General,
December 5, 2014. FirstNet Must Strengthen Management of Financial
Disclosures and Monitoring of Contracts, OIG-15-013-A. Washington,
D.C.: DOC OIG. See this report for additional detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2013, the FirstNet Board established a Special Review
Committee to examine these issues. In the public version of its
report,\7\ the Committee concluded that (1) the FirstNet Board had
engaged in open and transparent decision making, (2) FirstNet did not
withhold information from Board members, and (3) FirstNet was still
developing its network plan with full consultation and outreach. In
October 2013, the Board Chairman, based on conversations with the
Inspector General, asked the OIG to take over the inquiry into ethics
and procurement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See FirstNet Special Review Committee, September 20, 2013.
Report on Openness and Transparency, Access to Information and Network
Planning [online]. www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2013/firstnet-
special-review-committee-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our audit work, which covered 2012 and 2013, found:
A. Confidential and public disclosure monitoring procedures were
inadequate, some Board members did not file timely disclosure
reports, and monitoring of potential conflicts of interest
needs improvement. Because of their status as special
government employees and their level of compensation, FirstNet
Board members are required to file confidential or public
financial disclosure reports. The Department's Office of
General Counsel (OGC) provided guidance to FirstNet Board
members, each of whom was required to submit the confidential
financial disclosure form; OGC also informed us that it
initially provided ethics briefings for Board members, with
counselling for those whose employment or financial interests
could have created a conflict of interest.
The Department did not consider that some FirstNet Board members
would devote enough time to their Board duties to trigger the
requirement for the public financial disclosure form. Eight
Board members did trigger the requirement in 2013.
Specifically, we found that OGC was unable to provide a record of
all FirstNet confidential and public financial disclosure
files, including due dates, as required by Federal regulations.
Nor had OGC created a schedule of Board members' start dates of
service, due dates of disclosures, or a centralized point of
record showing the training and counselling provided. In
addition, 6 months after the Board began regular meetings,
senior NTIA and OGC officials were still debating how best to
routinely monitor potential conflicts of interest.
One Board member initially did not file a required public
disclosure and, when eventually doing so, did not disclose an
interest in a conflicting company. Another Board member
submitted the required public disclosure form 5 months late.
Two others submitted inaccurate time-and-attendance records, in
one case to avoid filing the required public financial
disclosure. Finally, all four of these Board members continued
to engage in decision making, even though they were not in
compliance with the financial disclosure requirements.
Our report included a Department response stating that--although
certain administrative requirements may not have been fulfilled
with respect to disclosure--as far as the Department is aware,
Board members made the material disclosures necessary to
identify and address potential conflicts. The Department also
stated that OIG did not identify any violations of conflict of
interest laws or circumstances that actually affected decision
making. In its February 3, 2015 action plan and March 5, 2015
revision to the plan requested by our office, the Department
identified actions taken to address these findings. In this
response, the Department asserts that various matters related
to financial disclosures have been addressed. FirstNet has
developed compliance procedures and now coordinates with the
Department on financial disclosures and conflicts of interest.
B. FirstNet's contracting practices lacked transparent award
competition, sufficient oversight of hiring, and adequate
monitoring. NTIA was tasked with helping FirstNet with its
start-up efforts, including the procurement of professional
staffing services such as project management and planning
support, professional and intellectual support, and support to
develop network and business plans. Because NTIA does not have
a contracting office, it secured contracting assistance from
other Departmental bureaus. Between September 2012 and March
2013, the contracting offices at the Census Bureau and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) entered
into three time-and-material (T&M) contracts on behalf of NTIA
to meet FirstNet's procurement needs.
T&M/labor hour contracts are considered high risk because a
contractor's profit is tied to the number of hours worked;
therefore, the government assumes the risk for cost overruns.
Because of this risk, OMB's Office of Federal Procurement
Policy (OFPP)\8\ requires agencies to provide appropriate
government monitoring of contractor performance to give
reasonable assurance that efficient methods and effective cost
controls are being used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ OFPP memorandum, October 27, 2009. ``Increasing Competition and
Structuring Contracts for the Best Results.''
We found that the three contracts were awarded as T&M contracts,
with a total value of approximately $14 million (see table 1, next
page). Although contract 1 was properly awarded and administered,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
contracts 2 and 3 were not, as a result of the following:
Sole-source procurement for contract 3 did not meet Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) exceptions to full and open
competition requirements. The FAR--with limited exceptions--
requires government agencies to procure services by obtaining
full and open competition through procedures such as soliciting
sealed bids and requesting competitive proposals. There are
exceptions to obtaining full and open competition when one of
several circumstances exists: for example, when (1) there is an
unusual and compelling urgency or (2) the procurement is
authorized or required by a statute expressly authorizing or
requiring an acquisition from a specified source or through
another agency. Our review of the justification for the sole
source award of the third contract--which NIST awarded
noncompetitively to Workforce Resources, Inc. (WRI) for $8.40
million on March 18, 2013--showed that the justification was
inadequate.
According to NIST, it awarded contract 3 noncompetitively because
it was the most expeditious way to meet the Act's requirement
to establish FirstNet as operational within certain deadlines.
Additionally, the contracting office stated in its
Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC)
that the procurement was unusual, urgent, and compelling--and
that the interruption in services would be costly, as FirstNet
had mission essential milestone dates that had to be executed
to meet criteria established under the Act. We determined that
the justification was inadequate because (a) we found that
neither the Act nor the JOFOC identified specific guidelines
FirstNet was required to meet and (b) procurement needs did not
meet criteria for unusual and compelling urgency.
Undue influence from a FirstNet official, which interfered
with the contractor's ability to independently recruit and hire
consultants. On two separate contracts, a FirstNet Board member
inappropriately directed WRI hiring actions. First, before
contract 2 was awarded, the government inappropriately
identified and recruited subject matter experts (SMEs).
Specifically, FirstNet directed WRI via NIST's contracting
office to include a total of 16 SMEs in its proposal. On
November 6, 2012--9 days prior to contract award (i.e.,
November 15, 2012)--NIST e-mailed WRI a spreadsheet containing
the names of 14 SMEs. In addition, NIST also confirmed that 12
of the 16 SMEs included in the proposal were recommended
directly by a FirstNet Board member, while the other 4 SMEs
were transitioned in from the previous engagement with
FunctionalIT (contract 1). The actions taken by the government
gave the appearance that, in order to be awarded the contract,
WRI was required to hire the SMEs recommended by the
government.
Neither contracts 2 nor 3 were designated as personal services
contracts; however, in both cases, FirstNet directed the hiring
of preselected SMEs. Control over hiring and firing decisions
is one aspect of the traditional employer-employee
relationship, and thus the exercise of such control by Federal
employees over contractor personnel can create the appearance
of a personal service contracts. Federal agencies generally may
not enter into such contracts without explicit authority to do
so, essentially because they circumvent the civil service
system. In response to our report, FirstNet did not assert that
it has this authority. Furthermore, NIST and NTIA contracting
personnel should have implemented stronger controls to ensure
an independent relationship with contractor personnel--by both
allowing the contractor to independently conduct SME
recruitment and by not allowing FirstNet to direct hiring
actions. Unduly close personal relationships with contractor
personnel can create the appearance of favoritism and may call
into question the integrity of the procurement process.
Adequate surveillance not being conducted over contracts 2
and 3, resulting in approximately $11 million in unsupported
costs to the government. Contracts 2 and 3, which were T&M
contracts, required a level of monitoring that FirstNet
ultimately did not provide. Although the Contracting Officer's
Representative (COR) appropriately and consistently rejected
incorrect invoices, the COR was also required to review all
draft and final work products for ``completeness, accuracy, and
appropriateness.'' However, we were unable to verify that this
monitoring actually occurred. We also could not conclude that--
at the end of both contract periods--FirstNet received the few
deliverables that were expressly required by the contracts
(i.e., monthly status reports). WRI acknowledged that NIST did
not require it to provide monthly status reports of tasks
performed, even though such reports were required in contract
3.
Table 1.--Summary of FirstNet's Time-and-Materials (T&M) Contracts in FY 2012 and 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract Value
Contracting Bureau (and Contract Number) Date Contractor (Millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Census Bureau (Contract 1) 09/13/2012 FunctionalIT $1.95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIST (Contract 2) 11/15/2012 Workforce Resources, Inc. $3.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIST (Contract 3) 03/18/2013 Workforce Resources, Inc. $8.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total $14.33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OIG analysis of FirstNet reports.
Note: Contract 1 was awarded to FunctionalIT for $1.95 million on September 13, 2012, with a performance period
ending on March 21, 2014. Contract 2 was awarded to Workforce Resources, Inc. (WRI) for $3.98 million on
November 15, 2012, and was terminated on March 17, 2013, after $2.59 million was expended. Contract 3 was also
awarded to WRI for $8.4 million on March 18, 2013, with a performance period ending on December 17, 2013.
In its response to our report, the Department stated that it
monitored the performance of its early contracts and that it
relied on an unusual and compelling urgency exception to full
and open competition. The Department also concurred with our
recommendations related to the procurement issues noted in our
report. In its February 3, 2015, action plan and March 5, 2015,
revision to the plan requested by our office, the Department
identified actions planned and taken to address these findings,
including its plan to provide guidance to contracting staff on
correct procedures for (1) selecting contract types, (2) hiring
consultants, (3) ensuring receipt of deliverables, and (4)
outreach, training, and oversight effort to prevent occurrences
of unauthorized commitments. We are currently reviewing the
revised plan.
III. Current Audit Work
OIG continues its oversight of FirstNet. In November 2014, OIG
initiated an audit of FirstNet's technical development of the NPSBN. We
initiated our audit after coordinating with the GAO, which had already
started an ongoing review.\9\ Our objectives are to evaluate and assess
FirstNet's efforts and progress to develop the technical design aspects
for the NPSBN against key technical requirements and standards, the
requirements of the Act, stakeholder requirements, and established
performance metrics and milestones. These activities are central to
FirstNet achieving its mission to ensure the creation, deployment, and
operation of a single, nationwide network design of the NPSBN. We plan
to issue a final report on our audit later in FY 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The GAO review assesses (1) the extent to which FirstNet is
carrying out its responsibilities and establishing internal controls
for developing the public safety network, (2) how much the public
safety network is estimated to cost to construct and operate and how
FirstNet plans to become a self-funding entity, and (3) what lessons
can be learned from local and regional public safety network early
builder projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are currently reviewing interagency agreements used to support
FirstNet operations along with its work with entities such as PSAC,
NIST, and the FCC to determine whether FirstNet fulfilled consultation
requirements of the Act. It is important for FirstNet to consult and
collaborate with these entities--which, having expertise regarding
interoperable communications networks and knowledge of public safety
needs, can provide significant input to how the network can be designed
successfully. We are also reviewing expenditures and costs related to
technical design efforts to assess spending levels, and information
related to initial state consultation meetings to assess progress in
incorporating key state concerns into the development of the technical
design.
Establishing the NPSBN requires coordination and buy-in from
regional, state, tribal, and local jurisdictions. As designated by the
Act, FirstNet began consultation with Single Points of Contact (SPOCs)
from each state that were established to represent the needs of the
different jurisdictions. In April 2014, FirstNet began a process to
meet with each state to understand their unique communication needs for
the network and to allow an exchange of ideas and questions about the
NPSBN. As part of this process, the SPOCs invite members of the public
safety community to attend the consultation meetings. FirstNet
identified that the initial consultation meetings will be an important
step to an iterative, ongoing state consultation process. To date,
FirstNet has completed some consultations and has scheduled others
through the end of FY 2015. However, as of March 2, 2015, FirstNet had
not scheduled all initial state consultations.
In February 2015, we attended FirstNet's initial state consultation
effort with the state of Delaware--an event attended by the SPOC and
other public safety officials throughout the state. The purpose of our
visit was to assess FirstNet's approach to meeting its state
consultation requirements. We are considering how FirstNet provides
updates on its efforts to develop the NPSBN, as well as how it acquires
information from public safety attendees and their unique first
responder needs. Our review of a sample of FirstNet state consultation
meetings with local first responders found that their key concerns were
the cost of participation in the NPSBN; the necessity of priority
status for first responders and the ability to preempt other users when
accessing a network; and FirstNet's ability to facilitate rural
coverage. In addition, some meeting participants called attention to
issues unique to their states, for example rugged terrain or
reoccurring catastrophic weather events such as hurricanes or
tornadoes.
IV. Continuing Challenges for the Department and FirstNet
Three years after the passage of the Act, FirstNet faces various
short-and long-term challenges. As it proceeds, the Department and
FirstNet will require continued oversight from OIG, GAO, and Congress.
Among the most significant challenges are:
Ensuring the adequacy of funding for a nationwide network
Determining the sufficiency of assets contributed to the
network by states, local governments and commercial entities
Incorporating lessons learned from the Broadband Technology
Opportunities Program (BTOP)
Addressing identified internal control weaknesses
Addressing staffing and other organizational issues
Effectively executing the consultation process
Adequacy of funding for a nationwide long-term evolution (LTE) network
The Act provides up to $7 billion to build a nationwide public
safety network. FirstNet must build a network that covers most of the
50 states, 5 territories, the District of Columbia, and 566 tribal
nations. The 3.8 million square miles to be covered by the network will
include areas that are urban, suburban, rural, and wilderness, as well
as islands. Although up to $7 billion was initially authorized by the
Act, the total costs to establish the network are still unknown.
Sufficiency of assets contributed to the network
Implementing the NPSBN will require that FirstNet leverage existing
infrastructure, such as existing government and commercial buildings,
towers, fiber or microwave backhaul, and data centers. Assets are
expected to be contributed by various parties, including states, local
governments, tribal entities, and commercial entities. FirstNet must
effectively identify which existing infrastructure assets can be
incorporated into the network. Also, FirstNet must take appropriate
steps to comply with all applicable environmental and historic
preservation laws, regulations, treaties, conventions, agreements, and
executive orders as it integrates contributed assets into its design.
Lessons learned
FirstNet will need to build upon lessons learned from public safety
projects funded by BTOP grants, an American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 program administered by NTIA to expand nationwide broadband
infrastructure and adoption. Of the approximately 230 BTOP awards, 7
went to establish regional public safety broadband networks. However,
the passage of legislation establishing FirstNet overtook these
projects, and all 7 BTOP awards were partially suspended. Eventually,
FirstNet entered into spectrum lease agreements with 4 of the projects.
These included grants made to Adams County Communications Center, Inc.,
Colorado; the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System
Authority; the New Jersey Department of Treasury; and the New Mexico
Department of Information Technology. For these ongoing projects,
FirstNet will provide technical support and will share any lessons
learned on issues such as quality of service, priority/pre-emption, and
Federal partnerships with the broader public safety community. FirstNet
also needs to work closely with the Department of Commerce's Public
Safety Communications Research (PSCR) program, which provides support
in broadband technologies evaluation and testing, network modeling and
simulation, and standards.
Previously identified internal control weaknesses
Initially, FirstNet struggled to establish an organization and
necessary internal controls. In July 2014, an independent public
accounting firm \10\ reported a material weakness related to the
financial reporting process in FirstNet's first financial statement
audit required under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ KPMG LLP, July 24, 2014. Independent Auditor's Report to the
Secretary of Commerce and the FirstNet Board of Directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, as mentioned previously in this testimony, our
December 2014 report on ethics-and procurement-related issues found
that the Department's monitoring procedures for financial disclosure
and potential conflicts of interest at FirstNet were inadequate. We
also found that FirstNet's contracting practices lacked transparent
award competition, sufficient oversight of hiring, and adequate
monitoring. As we previously noted, the Department has acknowledged
OIG's findings, concurred with our recommendations, and is undertaking
corrective actions.
Staffing and other organizational issues
FirstNet has encountered difficulties in hiring and maintaining
staff for key technical positions. Nevertheless, FirstNet has made
progress in establishing a management structure. For instance, certain
Board members no longer play dual roles as Board members and managers.
As noted above, for roughly the first year and a half of its existence,
certain Board members functioned in roles as both board members and as
part of the management team, before FirstNet eventually assembled a
separate management team and transferred operational responsibilities
to it. Nonetheless, while many senior positions (e.g., chief
information officer, chief administrative officer, chief counsel, and
chief financial officer) are in place, key leadership positions
throughout the organization remain vacant, including the chief user
advocacy officer--a leadership position managing consultation and
outreach--as well as regional directors and supervisors for
consultations. Two FirstNet executives have left their positions, which
are now being filled in an acting capacity.
Effective execution of the consultation process
The Act designates at least three Federal agencies--the FCC, NTIA,
and NIST--to provide consultation and support to FirstNet. The Act also
required the creation of the PSAC to assist FirstNet in meeting its
mission.
The Act also directed that FirstNet consult with regional, state,
tribal and local jurisdictions regarding the distribution and
expenditure of funds required to establish network policies.
Cooperation from these jurisdictions is a significant factor in
ensuring the successful deployment and sustainability of the NPSBN.
Specific consultation topics outlined in the Act include core network
construction and Radio Access Network (RAN) build out, placement of
towers, and network coverage areas, among others.
FirstNet is to consult with the jurisdictions through a locally
designated officer or body, generally referred to as the Single Point
of Contact (SPOC) for each jurisdiction. Accordingly, FirstNet has
begun initial consultations with SPOCs and must consider the
information it collects into the NPSBN's development. FirstNet had set
an internal goal to have initial consultations with each jurisdiction
completed by the end of November 2014. However, while FirstNet has held
some initial consultation meetings and has scheduled others into
September 2015, many have yet to be scheduled (see table 2, next page).
FirstNet has indicated that the timing of these meetings depends on
each state's readiness and how quickly FirstNet can fully staff its
outreach team.
Table 2. Status of First Net's Initial State and Local Consultation Meetings as of March 2, 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completed 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scheduled 26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not scheduled 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OIG, based on FirstNet data.
Note: The target date for completion of meetings was November 30, 2014.
As we continue our oversight of FirstNet, we will keep the
Committee informed of FirstNet's progress with respect to the
challenges discussed here--and any others we identify through our
audits and investigations.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Zinser, and thanks to the
panel for your great comments. And we'll look forward to asking
a few questions. We'll try to confine it, to members of the
Committee, to five-minute rounds.
I'll start off by asking you a question, Ms. Swenson. The
statute authorizing FirstNet specifically states that rural
America can't be left behind in deploying FirstNet. My question
is: How do you plan to ensure that more states are adequately
covered?
Ms. Swenson. Thank you for the question.
As I think you know, in discussions with your office and
with many of the other members, we take the rural coverage
very, very seriously. In fact, it's as high a priority as
urban. In fact, I think it's important for people to understand
it's the urban coverage that differentiates this FirstNet
network from a commercial network because commercial, as you
know, doesn't cover rural.
We talked a little bit about state consultation and the
importance of state consultation. It's in those meetings where
we actually review the program with the state. As you know, we
work in advance with the single point-of-contact of your
particular state and plan those meetings, go over our plans,
and then give an opportunity for folks from the state to
actually tell us where their priorities are.
It's really important. We don't know that. So that's why we
have to go into those consultation meetings, get the
information, which then we are going to feed into the RFP
process as part of the response mechanism for the vendors who
are going to be responding to this about how they're going to
do that coverage and at what cost. So it's a critical component
of the FirstNet program. And again, I think it's really
important to understand. This is what differentiates FirstNet
from a commercial network.
The Chairman. Speaking of the RFP, FirstNet was established
in 2012 but stakeholders have been pushing for a long time for
an interoperable public safety network. That has been going on
for about a decade. Many are concerned that if the RFP doesn't
move forward reasonably soon that the vendor community and the
public safety community could lose confidence in this endeavor
and that could be a tipping point with regard to the future,
success and viability of FirstNet.
You mentioned earlier in your testimony that you're going
to try to complete the RFP by the end of the month. Is that
what I heard you say?
Ms. Swenson. The draft RFP.
The Chairman. The draft RFP.
Ms. Swenson. Yes, let me clarify that.
It is really important, if I could, Senator? I'd like to
just talk about the fact that, as I said, we're on track with
everything we said we were going to do on our strategic
roadmap. As I said, we issued the public notice and comment on
Monday. And, by the end of this month, the Board is going to
consider the draft RFP for issuance.
The reason it's important to put a draft RFP out in the
community is the very thing you said: vendors want to know what
we're intending and provides the opportunity for the vendors to
give us feedback about how that draft RFP is actually issued.
So that we, when we issue the final RFP towards the latter part
of the calendar year, we won't experience unintended
consequences because we didn't take that into consideration.
So we are on track to issue that. And, like I said, we're
on track with all of the milestones that we communicated over a
year ago.
The Chairman. And you think end of the calendar year for
the final RFP?
Ms. Swenson. That's what I believe today.
You know, there are things----
The Chairman. Are there factors that could delay that? What
are they?
Ms. Swenson. You know, I am not aware of any that could
delay that. I mean, internally, we believe that that's the
case. And, depending on the comments we get back from the
vendor community and others about that draft RFP, it may extend
it a little bit but I think it'll be well with the time so that
when we actually issue the RFP it's done right and it's done
effectively so that we get the kind of answers.
As you indicated, the RFP is the pivotal part of this
program. The draft RFP is not only about deploying the network
but it's about monetizing the excess capacity in the spectrum.
I mean it's a very complicated process. So this has to be done
right, and I think it's pivotal for the program.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Goldstein, I understand that FirstNet hasn't determined
yet how the Early Builder projects, in those jurisdictions that
are moving ahead with FirstNet-Ready LTE networks, will be
incorporated in the FirstNet network and that various factors
could effect that determination. If you could, please,
elaborate on those factors and perhaps recommend what steps
that FirstNet could and should take to address those.
Mr. Goldstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Regarding the Early Builder project lessons that they need
to learn about and they have been collecting some information.
They include governance, financing the network, conducting
outreach, and planning for deployment. All four of those areas,
the Early Builder projects have been doing their work and
trying to develop options for, as they proceed on their own.
They have looked, FirstNet has looked at some of those
projects, but they have not done so in a way that we think is
sufficiently effective.
They haven't done a full-blown evaluation, they haven't
integrated information into a data assessment plan that would
allow them to use that information down the road as these
various projects hit certain milestones, and then use that
information to make changes themselves in FirstNet's own
development as time goes forward. So we think that they can do
a better job in that area and maybe that it's trying to do
everything at once has been difficult for them. I think we
recognize that, but that's one area where, if they are going to
achieve success, it's absolutely critical for them to obtain as
much information from existing projects on the ground as they
can.
The Chairman. And very quickly, Mr. Zinser, you identified
FirstNet as an area of concern in the Department in the
upcoming year. As you mentioned, in December 2014, your office
released a report raising various concerns. What are your
biggest concerns about it going forward?
Mr. Zinser. Thank you, Chairman.
I think the concerns going forward pretty much mirrored
some of the issues you've raised in your statement, but there
are many unknowns about the network and how they're going to
proceed. But I think what we focused on so far is building the
organization itself with its personnel and its policies, it's
procedures, it's adherence to internal controls, is the thing
that we focused on the most.
The Chairman. And are you satisfied that FirstNet
sufficiently listened to and implemented some of the
recommendations and findings that you came out with in your
report?
Mr. Zinser. Yes, sir. We issued nine recommendations; one
to the Secretary, one to the general council of the department,
two to the Chairman of FirstNet, and five to the senior
procurement official in the department and they are all being
implemented.
The Chairman. OK, thank you.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let's remember the reason for FirstNet: To have all the
first responders to be able to talk to each other without the
hindrances that we've seen in the past where one side can't be
talking to the other side when there is a matter of national
security or a national emergency or local emergency in front of
us. And I want to thank you all for what you're doing. We knew
that this mission was not going to be easy. We've certainly
seen in disasters in the past one set of radios can't talk to
the others, but the stakes of inaction are way too high.
And so, we tasked you all with creating, right from
scratch, the interoperable nationwide network devoted to public
safety. And so, you are a unique hybrid. We've asked the Board
to think like an entrepreneur with a limited budget to launch a
startup enterprise within the confines of the Federal
Government. That's pretty huge.
The Board wasn't even set up until August 2012 and then you
had no employees. You had to go out and do all of that. And so,
launching this, with the urgency that the legislation gave it 3
years ago, you've certainly chronicled the problems along the
way.
Now, I want to go down a different tack with my question.
Ms. Swenson, cybersecurity. It's an essential component of
FirstNet; it's a mission-critical network, it's got to
obviously be a target for the bad guys. And so, it has got to
be hardened against these threats. So we required in the
legislation that you consider cybersecurity. What steps are you
taking in the planning for the nationwide network to prevent
against the attacks?
And then, Mr. Andrews, I'm going to ask you. Is the
Department reviewing FirstNet's work on cybersecurity
protections and what are you going to do about it in the
future?
Ms. Swenson.
Ms. Swenson. Thank you, Senator.
And, as you know, we've discussed that in previous
conversations. Cyber is a very challenging area not only for
FirstNet but for the Nation and for a lot of large companies
around the U.S. But I am happy to tell you that we are
collaborating very closely with the Department of Homeland
Security on this topic. We are adding resources to the
organization so that that is built into our planning, our
technical planning and, of course, would be a major part of our
request for proposal. So it's a high priority, and I think
we're leveraging the resources appropriately within the Federal
Government. Always open for suggestions, but it is a high
priority for FirstNet.
Senator Nelson. Are you going to have enough money to
harden against cyber?
Ms. Swenson. Well, it's probably too early to answer that
question specifically because we are just now looking at the
planning process. We believe that the business model that we
have is sufficient to build out this network and have
incorporated those assumptions into our financial model. So at
this point, I don't see any difficulty with that but, like
everything we do with FirstNet, everything is new.
You know, there are things that we thought at the
beginning, two years ago, that we've actually changed as a
result of what we've learned and I imagine that we'll continue
to learn as we go along the way. But, again, it's a very high
priority and we will keep you posted on how we're doing that,
because I know it's a very important topic to you.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Andrews, I think it's essential to
harden against cybersecurity because other than your everyday
natural disaster, but when it's not a natural disaster, whoever
is attacking us is going to be attacking us with cyber
simultaneously. What are you going to do?
Mr. Andrews. So, Senator, cybersecurity is a high priority
for the Department and we recognize this is a very serious
issue that needs to be addressed as part of the FirstNet build
out. So not only are we working with the FirstNet team in
making sure that they have all the support that they need but
our CIO is involved, our team is involved and we're working
hand-in-hand with FirstNet to make sure that they have the
resources not just from the Department but, as Sue mentioned,
from across the Federal Government; having the best expertise
that's available including our NIST team. I think many of you
are familiar with the NIST cybersecurity framework, but we have
a number of experts at NIST who have also been involved in
working with the FirstNet team as well.
Senator Nelson. Well, I've met with NIST and you're going
to need to work with them. You're going to need to work with
some of our intelligence agencies because the technology is so
rapidly changing in these areas of the kind of sophisticated
attacks that can occur. And, if we're talking about a terrorist
attack, you all are going to have to be able to communicate on
your network. And, of course, that's going to be one of the
first things that the bad guys are going to try to deny; is our
ability to communicate and command.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator Ayotte.
STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Ayotte. I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking
Member, and all of you. I appreciate why we need this. We've
all had incidences in our states. A number of years ago, we had
an incident in New Hampshire that prompted an early discussion
in our state about this where we had a horrible, horrible mad
man who murdered a judge, murdered troopers that were trying to
subdue him, murdered a local newspaper person, and the radios
didn't talk to each other. And that created that, was to the
advantage of the perpetrator in allowing to use that situation
to cause more deaths. So this is a real issue.
As I think about our state, I know that the consultation in
New Hampshire is going to be June 9. And you have said, Ms.
Swenson, that you're going to get the feedback from the states
and particularly, as I think about Chairman Thune's question,
two-thirds of my state is really rural areas where we have
challenges on how we build a network so people can talk to each
other. In that process, where you take New Hampshire's feedback
and every other state's feedback, and then you put together the
RFP for the end of the year, will the states have a feedback
loop? In other words, you sit down with them on June 9, they
tell you what they think, and then you're putting together an
RFP. Is there another opportunity after for them to see the RFP
or to see what you're working on to make sure that their views
are reflected on it?
Ms. Swenson. Well, thank you for the question because I
really want to emphasize that consultation is a broad and
ongoing process. It's not a one-time event.
We talk a lot about the state consultations, and I think
it's really important that people understand what we're trying
to accomplish there. But our relationship with the states is
ongoing.
As I indicated, we have conference calls, we are available
by staff, we have e-mails, we have face-to-face meetings. Also,
I would tell you that as we go through the process of
consultation and the RFP, and then we actually deliver a plan
to each Governor for the plan for their state, that will not be
a surprise. We want this to be a very iterative, very
collaborative, process so that when you get that plan on that
day, you've been so involved in it there could be no surprises.
I mean, that's really the mindset we have around the
process. So, I mean, it's very important that we all work
together. And, as you know, we've been somewhat limited on
staff but we're adding people to make sure that we have the
right number of people to be available to you and your team so
that we can be effective in the information that we're
providing you.
Senator Ayotte. Good.
And one of the things we're hearing from feedback from
people on the ground in New Hampshire is their saying, ``What's
the benefit of FirstNet?'' In other words, the local agencies
that have frankly been working on this issue for years, so this
isn't a new issue for law enforcement and for first responders
like the chief here, and they're saying, ``Why should we opt
into FirstNet versus using a private distributor?''
And part of this plan, I assume, is how do we use maximized
commercial opportunities given the resources we have. So what
would you say to that issue? And perhaps, because you're so
new, that this worry that we don't know what to expect from the
first responder community, you could understand why that would
be a real one.
Ms. Swenson. Sure. Would you like me to answer?
Senator Ayotte. Yes. I'm curious what you would say to
that. I just tried to get some local feedback: What do you
think about this? What are you hearing? What's your initial
impression?
Ms. Swenson. Well, I don't think you feedback is different
from what we hear, which is why we're trying to be out, as
Chief Bryant said, with as many of the constituents as we
possibly can. It is not uncommon. I go to my local grocery
store and talk to firefighters and law enforcement and I ask
them if they know about FirstNet. It is a lot of people out
there. I mean, there are hundreds of thousands of people that
we need to get that message out to, so I'm not surprised at
what you're hearing, but we're working very hard to get the
information out.
I would tell you, from a benefit standpoint, you know, what
we try to communicate, because it's not unusual that people
don't understand why should we do this versus that, one of the
things is the rural coverage. I think the rural coverage is
really a critical differentiator. This is a dedicated network.
This is not a network that is used by all of us. What happens
when you have an incident? What is the first thing all of you
do? You get on your cellphone.
Senator Ayotte. I would argue without rural coverage you
probably could do this quite easily commercially.
Ms. Swenson. Well----
Senator Ayotte. It's the rural areas that really we need
the help the most.
Ms. Swenson. But I think it's more than that because
commercial is basically focused on commercial. I mean that is
their focus and they have shareholders and earnings releases
and things that they have to worry about. We don't.
The money that we get from this we're going to reinvest in
the network. So it's dedicated. It also has priority and
preemption. So the funding that we're going to get from this--
as we said, we have $7 billion from the last auction. We have
spectrum that is very valuable. It is beachfront property. I
mean it is really, really good spectrum. And so getting the
revenue from that will enable us to, along with user fees, to
be able to operate this network.
And I think, what's really important for, I think, first
responders, and for anybody interested in this, is that we're
talking about a recapitalized business model. If you look at
this systems, excuse me, if you look at the systems today, the
LMR systems, LAN over radio systems that are in existence
today, are old. They're 10, 15 years old. It's very difficult
for agencies to get the funding to upgrade that.
The model that we have is talking about upgrading that as
technology presents itself. For example, if we start to deploy
this network and we move from 4G to 5G, then we will be
deploying 5G. So we're going to give first responders the
technology that we enjoy as consumers today as that technology
evolves.
We also are going to be working to--we're still working on
the standards around this, but recognizing the network for
particular circumstances in your state, in, you know, all of
the member's states. We want to understand what the
circumstances are and we're working to define; hardening
standards so that we can try to harden the network to withstand
those incidents that, you know, from a weather perspective,
that would affect the networks.
So we also are going to have applications. I think the
development community is going to get very excited about the
applications that can be made for public safety. This is an
organization dedicated to public safety. It's not secondary,
it's primary. And commercial networks, I was one. I know. I
know where the priority is. It's about, you know, finding
customers, getting revenue, you know, responding to
shareholders every quarter. FirstNet is very different.
And I think it's really important for people to know, even
if you decide to let us deploy your network in your state
instead of building your own radio access network, the public
safety agencies are not obligated to sign up. There's not a
mandate that they have to.
So think what that says to us in terms of developing this
network. We have to create a compelling value proposition that
gives them more value than they have today. And so, that is why
we are spending so much time with public safety; is to
understand their needs so that what we deliver to public safety
is what they're going to want to use. So we're very conscience
of that issue and we're working very hard to get information
out.
We're working, actually, with the associations to try to
get more information out to the people who are on the street
because it's very, very difficult. In fact, we were at the FOP
meeting in San Diego last Saturday, and law enforcement in San
Diego was not that familiar with FirstNet. But our staff and I
presented at the FOP meeting to educate, you know, 150 people
at that session. So we're working very hard to get the message
out. If there's more we can do, we're open to suggestions.
Senator Ayotte. Absolutely. Thank you.
Ms. Swenson. Thank you.
Senator Ayotte. We'll certainly want to make sure all of
our first responders are informed.
Ms. Swenson. Right.
Senator Ayotte. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Ms. Swenson. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Ayotte.
Senator Booker.
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY BOOKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Booker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I just want to say thank you for the work
that you're doing. You've been tasked with doing something
that's really unprecedented----
Ms. Swenson. Right.
Senator Booker.--not just in government but really in
American history that is extraordinarily and absolutely,
urgently needed. As Senator Ayotte said, all of us probably,
that are serving in the U.S. Senate, know the urgency for this.
I spent 8 years almost, as a mayor, with crisis and crisis and
crisis, and I saw, as Chief Bryant could probably attest from
his experiences, that communications, whether it's of men going
into a burning building with no visibility or how important
just a radio is to be able to communicate externally.
For us, Hurricane Sandy, we saw in the most painful way how
critical communication was. I even had a situation where we had
an earthquake in New Jersey, something people don't think we
have. And after surviving the 89 earthquake in California, I
didn't think it was too serious until all my communications,
police department, fire department, all my officials went down,
and fortunately we had a plan to meet but that suddenly made me
realize the challenges.
So what you're doing is really a life or death initiative.
You are making strides that should be celebrated. My state is
ecstatic about the contribution you're making to New Jersey.
And I'd like to submit for the record an article about Atlantic
City without objection, Mr. Chairman.
[The information referred to follows:]
Atlantic City to lead way with broadband network for public safety
(Feb 9, 2015)
Credit: AtlanticCity.com--Lynda Cohen
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/atlantic-city-to-lead-way-with-
broadband-network-for-public/article_8f841654-b0a9-11e4-9f47-
f3487533808a.html
Atlantic City public safety soon will have its own broadband
network that means better communication and more reliable service.
The city is one of three areas in the state to be part of a pilot
program by the Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness that
eventually will have a nationwide broadband system called FirstNet.
That means public safety will not be using the same network as the
public, lessening the chance of overloads and problems like those that
stressed connections during last year's free beach concerts and the
Miss America Parade.
Mobile centers also will increase the area covered and allows for
communication between agencies during larger emergencies.
Fred Scalera, the public safety broadband manager for state
Homeland Security, explained that it would prevent problems such as
those during 9-11, when the New York and New Jersey sides couldn't
communicate.
A retired Nutley fire chief, Scalera experienced that firsthand.
Then, as an assemblyman from Essex County, he worked on legislation
that helped create the program and get funding, so there is no cost to
the towns.
The timing couldn't be better, as Atlantic City is also in the
process of upgrading its technology, said Atlantic City police Lt.
James Sarkos, who has been the point person for the project.
``This is something that's going to benefit the entire region,''
Chief Henry White said.
Scalera updated public safety workers Monday at Stockton's Carnegie
Center in Atlantic City. The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey's
main campus in Galloway Township will act as the command center for
Atlantic County.
A System on Wheels, or SOW, will be set up near the Public Safety
Building that houses Atlantic City police, and will be able to keep
things running even if everything else goes down, Scalera explained.
Using satellite, it will correspond to seven mobile stations: five at
locations within the city and one each in Pleasantville and Absecon.
Leaders asked that location of these so-called Cells on Wheels, or
COWs, not be disclosed for security reasons.
Two of the locations were still be worked on Monday.
FirstNet will be able to tie in different systems, including
Mutualink, which allows agencies to communicate during emergencies even
with incompatible radio or wireless systems.
Eventually, other systems could come in, including utilities. If
that happens, it could mean the simple flip of a switch to turn off
electric and gas to a home on fire, or to aid in things like SWAT
operations, where police may ask to have electricity cut off to make
their entry safer.
The system is expected to be functional by June, with it going live
by December, after officers have had hands-on training.
Pleasantville Police Capt. Sean Riggin said his department ``is
eager to participate in this exciting opportunity to improve our
policing and communication partnerships with ACPD and the State
Police.''
``This is another example of our commitment to improving our
operations and service to our community through the use of technology
and intelligence-led strategies,'' he added.
Because of Atlantic City's mostly low-lying area, the trial of how
far the network could range showed that a 5-foot antenna could get
``fringe coverage'' almost 10 miles out, Scalera said.
To compare the size of the areas, Scalera pointed to Los Angeles
County in California, where there are 200 towers. In New Jersey, it
would take 200 to 250 towers to cover the entire state.
Senator Booker. About Atlantic City, about the public
safety work you're doing there and how we believe, in New
Jersey, that the mobile platforms that you're creating that can
be rolled out in a crisis----
Ms. Swenson. Right.
Senator Booker.--to key areas really is something for this
country. There could be a benefit in a model for the Nation
whether it's rural areas or urban areas or suburban areas.
So I just celebrate you, and I also celebrate you in a
sense that you're working through bureaucracy that is not used
to dealing with this very unique public-private partnership
that you have. And so, I really respect the professionals that
are sitting with you on the panel who have done the arduous
work of oversight.
But I want to afford you a couple opportunities to respond
a little bit to some of the challenges that you put forward.
And the first is your constructive criticism of having to deal
with a lot of the challenges on procurement and others that are
undermining your progress to your goal. It's very important, I
think to this Committee who likes to remove barriers to get
good things done, and this is one of the more righteous things.
We may not realize how much we need it, but let a major crisis
happen to this country. If you get this done, you will make a
difference that could be thousands of lives saved.
So could you just talk for a moment about those obstacles
that you're encountering and how maybe we could do something to
remove them for you?
Ms. Swenson. Sure.
I think, you know, the way I'd like to characterize it is
we're working with Deputy Secretary Bruce Andrews and his staff
and Secretary Pritzker on improving the processes within the
Department, within NTIA and with FirstNet. So set aside the
Federal regulations for a moment. There is just a lot of people
touching a lot of things today and we need to streamline that.
And we're really committed to working on that improvement.
I also think it's important that we have the ability to
control our destiny and that we have the ability to have people
who are dedicated and for FirstNet is their first priority.
Because this is no pejorative comment about people that we work
with but FirstNet is a secondary item for them. I mean, they
have a full-time day job and then we pile on FirstNet on top of
that. And so, we probably don't get the, you know, the urgency
that we feel about things. So to the degree that we can take
accountability and responsibility for those functions, we'll
obviously follow all the rules and regulations but I think we
would have an opportunity to move more quickly.
So I'd like to see what we can do about improving that and
also taking responsibility from Commerce. And obviously, we
wouldn't do that until such time that we were prepared. We went
through that process with Commerce and NTIA already with our
finance organization. Initially, they provided support for us.
Today, we actually do a lot of that work ourselves. So I think
we've demonstrated that we can bring in the right resources
with the right talent and training; put the processes and
controls in place that would cause people to feel comfortable
that we would fulfill that.
Senator Booker. Let me interrupt you just for the last 26
seconds, because I would love for you to submit more of that to
the record afterwards. I'd love to hear in detail some of the
things that we could be doing to prevent it. But I just want to
end by saying one comment, one question, which is--the comment
is our first responders we elevate, as Senators, consistently
but the people that have the first responder's backs should be
elevated too. And I want to just give you a chance to respond
to the cost issue. I know you spoke about it a little bit, but
really the build design to have a self-funding mechanism----
Ms. Swenson. Right.
Senator Booker.--and do you think that's sufficient,
because Mr. Goldstein pointed out that it might not be? Is that
sufficient?
Ms. Swenson. Well, you know, I think what's important to
understand in the GAO report is that the information that's in
there is built on a lot of assumptions. And, you know, I think
even Mr. Goldstein indicated that. That those assumptions that
you saw, $12 to $47 billion have a set of assumptions that, you
know, that he didn't have visibility to.
We have built a financial model with a set of assumptions
as well. And we believe we understand what we need to
accomplish in terms of our spectrum value in order to make this
self, you know, a self-sustaining network. That's why the RFP
is such a critical component to that because that is really the
funding mechanism. While $7 billion is a lot of money, I'm not
saying ``no thank you'' to that, but it's not sufficient to
continue to operate and upgrade this network over time. So I
believe that financial model is solid, but we won't know the
answer to that until we finish the RFP process.
And, of course, the RFP process is critical for us being
able to put together a plan for each of the Governors where we
can talk about the coverage we're going to provide and what
it's going to cost the, you know, the first responders to
subscribe to that. We won't know all of that until the RFP is
completed. We've made assumptions; we won't know the facts
until the RFP is completed.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
Ms. Swenson. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Booker.
Senator Manchin.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too want to
thank all of you and thanks for what you're doing in this
FirstNet it's unbelievably important for all of us.
Let me just say that when Governor of West Virginia, I came
into the office in early 2005 and we weren't able to
communicate with any natural disasters or mine tragedies that
we had, couldn't get the equipment to the right place in time
because we couldn't communicate. So it was critically important
for us to protect our citizens by being able to communicate. We
put an interoperable radio system in, as you recall, with good
towers and all that.
We're probably one of the most rural states east of the
Mississippi. With that being said, this is so important to us.
So what I would say to you is that--and I also want to thank
you for the Mackinac Conference that you attended and that was
some of my West Virginia first responders. But when will phase
two of the grants be available, which is really going to get us
in business? Right now, everyone's talking and planning, but
we're not seeing any action.
Ms. Swenson. Right.
I don't know if you want to answer that question?
Mr. Andrews. About the state level of planning grants?
Ms. Swenson. Yes, the grants.
Mr. Andrews. Sure.
Ms. Swenson. Because he manages the grants.
Senator Manchin. Oh, yes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Manchin. When are you going to let him go?
Mr. Andrews. So, there are----
Senator Manchin. Turn your microphone on so everybody can
hear you.
Mr. Andrews. Oh, I'm going to be in trouble after that.
Senator Manchin. Again, the question was when you going to
let the money go?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Andrews. So there are actually two rounds of money. The
first round of money, under the state level implementation
grants, otherwise known as SLIGP, a great acronym----
Senator Manchin. We're ready to go to two.
Mr. Andrews. So the round one has gone out. Round two is
somewhat dependent on the figuring out what the data needs are
for FirstNet. So we're working with them. The first round has
gone out for the consultations, for the planning, you know, and
to really allow the states to do the work that, to fund that
work, to work with FirstNet as part of that first round, and
part of the state consultations. The second round, though, is
going to go out for accumulating the data that will go into it.
And so, we're in the process of figuring out what is it the
data----
Senator Manchin. Every state is going to be different, and
I'm sorry because our time is so limited. Everything is going
to be different from state to state as far as the needs are.
The State of West Virginia, we undertook a program with
stimulus money and basically built out to every school, every
post office, every community building. We got Internet into
every nook and cranny in West Virginia. But, basically to build
off of that has not been profitable for the private sector to
take it on because of the customer base. But it would be easy
for you to hook off of that for FirstNet into those critical
areas of first responders. So some of us could really get up
and running much quicker if we had access to this and if you're
going to fast-track some of this.
Mr. Andrews. We expect within the next couple months to
have that second phase of money go out.
Senator Manchin. If you want to use us as a trial and
error, West Virginia would be delighted to work with you.
Let me go to Mr. Goldstein right now.
Mr. Goldstein, in the past three years you've successfully
hired less than 100 people that I'm told. OIG investigation
found various issues with the hiring process, response, and it
appears to have been more lawyers, more layers of bureaucracy
and more red tape. The annual report, which was due February
twenty-third, still has not been released because it has to be
reviewed, I am told by 10 different Federal agencies, before it
can be even shared with the first responders who it is designed
to serve. Is all this new to you?
Mr. Goldstein. Yes, sir. I am not aware of that.
Senator Manchin. That you're aware that the February
twenty-third has come and gone and the annual report has not
been given.
Mr. Goldstein. I'm not sure of the question that you're
asking, sir. To whom is it referred? I'm with the GAO.
Senator Manchin. Oh. Well, I mean you all are overseeing it
right? The Accountability Office, you would.
Mr. Goldstein. We have done our first audit of FirstNet
which is what I'm here talking about today, sir.
Senator Manchin. Well, would it alarm you all that they
might not be able to meet the FirstNet needs as far as
personnel, that's all they've been able to hire? I mean----
Mr. Goldstein. We understand that----
Senator Manchin. Can someone else--maybe I got the wrong.
Can someone else answer this?
Ms. Swenson. I can certainly respond to that.
First of all, the annual report actually has been issued.
There was a bit of a time delay, but you should have access to
that at this point. And it does require significant review.
You're actually correct on that, and maybe there's an
opportunity, I think, to take a look----
Senator Manchin. I mean this is what really upsets people.
Ms. Swenson. Well, you know what? You're talking to
somebody from the private sector. The answer is no.
Senator Manchin. OK.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Swenson. I mean it's just simply, no, it doesn't make
sense. But I'm not an expert on government process so I'm not
sure of the----
Senator Manchin. These are the things you can tell us about
because this is a national emergency. If something were, God
forbid, happening, can we help each other? A Katrina-type
thing? My goodness, it was such a cluster I couldn't even tell
you all.
Ms. Swenson. So could we help each other when we put up the
network?
Senator Manchin. I mean to get FirstNet up and running,
basically the states can.
Ms. Swenson. Yes, actually that's the beauty of FirstNet.
Senator Manchin. Yes. I know that. But I'm saying, to cut
through the ten different Federal agencies, tell us what your
impediments are.
Ms. Swenson. As I said, the impediments today are in
personnel hiring because it takes us anywhere from nine months
to a year to get people on the payroll through all the
processes, through job descriptions, through hiring, through
security clearances, and all those kinds of things. It can take
a significant amount of time to get people on the payroll.
Again, that's where we're working with Department of Commerce.
And procurement. I mean, again, I would like to just say
that I think it's really important that we have as much control
over our destiny as possible to have people who are dedicated
to this who feel a sense of urgency for whom it's not a second
job. And all the people who work in FirstNet today feel the
sense of urgency, want to get things done, but it's difficult.
Senator Manchin. OK.
Mr. Chairman, my time is up but if I could maybe work with
you and the Ranking Member. If we could look at cutting some of
this government regulation in order to get this up and running
much quicker, because we're hitting this in every aspect of
government. Maybe the Commerce Committee can cut through this
stuff.
The Chairman. I would be more than happy in going to work--
--
Senator Manchin. OK. Well, let's do it.
The Chairman.--with the Senator from West Virginia because
that is crazy. I mean, this stuff is beyond the pale sometimes
in terms of what it takes to get anything launched. So let's do
that. Thank you, Senator Manchin.
Senator Peters.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to our panelists today for your testimony and all
your hard work on this issue and your insight into it. And I
want to say I'm certainly concerned about all of the issues
that I've heard from my colleagues in Michigan that I'm
privileged to represent, and where there are a great deal of
rural areas as well. So I appreciate your efforts in making
sure that we have this network up and running in rural areas.
We also have urban areas.
But in my question, I want to take another area that's very
important to us and that's border areas. We are a state that is
on some of the most traversed border crossings in the country.
In fact, we just recently have been moving forward on a new
international bridge between Detroit and Windsor, which will
greatly increase trade between our countries and continue to
make Michigan a logistics hub for the whole country; plus we
have border crossing in Port Huron and Sault Sainte Marie. And,
as a result of that, we have frequent contacts with Canadian
officials.
And, as we're dealing with border issues and when it comes
to first responders, often have to coordinate with those
international entities or, in this case, the Canadian entities.
And they have different spectrum issues than we have in the
United States.
So to Chairwoman Swenson, if you could comment a little bit
about how FirstNet's going to ensure that some of emergency
communications along the borders are going to be facilitated
and give a sense of what sort of discussions you have had with
Canadian officials in terms of making sure there isn't
interference in the communication that we may have on our side
of the border versus their side of the border and when they
have to be connected together as well? So I know it's a complex
issue, but maybe if you can flesh that out.
Ms. Swenson. Actually, it's not a complex issue.
Senator Peters. Oh, good. Excellent.
Ms. Swenson. I mean, from a technical perspective, and I
would just tell you that one of our BTOP projects is not really
focused on Canada but also on the Southern border, because we
know that border issues are challenging. So we are actually
quite a bit from our BTOP projects, and one of those is border
issues. Again, we're focused on Mexico, not Canada, but we have
a very good relationship with Canada. They have the same
standards that the U.S. does. So we don't anticipate a lot of
difficulty, frankly, with Canada. We are anticipating some
challenges with Mexico, which is our New Mexico BTOP project is
actually focused on that as one of the key learning conditions.
So we've actually, I think, from a key learning condition,
and things we've learned from our BTOP projects, we've actually
had about 61 things that we've actually learned. And I would
just like to mention another one in particular that has been
extremely valuable that has been fed into the technical team
and the RFP process, and that is our project in Las Angeles.
Las Angeles is working to try to get some sites up. And we've
learned that the use of existing government infrastructure is
quite a bit more challenging than we had originally
anticipated; developing memorandum of understanding, leasing
excess capacity is very challenging. So it actually has been
extremely helpful through that project.
So I would just have you feel a little more comforted; be
happy that you're on the Northern border instead of the
southern border because I think we'll be able to traverse those
challenges quite easily.
Senator Peters. Well, I'll say that's very good to hear.
The other issue that we face, being a Great Lakes state, is
that we have a very large Coast Guard presence as well----
Ms. Swenson. Yes.
Senator Peters.--along the shoreline. And so, just if you
could let me know a little bit what FirstNet is doing to work
with some of the military branches and the Coast Guard. As you
know, depending on what the emergency is, sometimes it's the
Coast Guard that's the first to respond but they work very
closely with fire and police and EMS personnel as well.
Ms. Swenson. Exactly. You know, I think it's an excellent
question.
And just as we have outreach to all of the states that
we've been talking about, we actually have a dedicated person
on the FirstNet staff to focus with our Federal partners. And
there's actually a person inside the Federal Government who is
now our single point-of-contact, much like a state has. We
actually are working with a group called the ECPC. There's a
lot of acronyms in the Federal Government.
Senator Peters. Yes, there is.
Ms. Swenson. I think it's called the Emergency
Communications something, something. Anyway, I'm sorry. I don't
remember the acronym, but it has to do with bringing all the
agencies together around emergency communications. And
previously, two of our board members, Suzanne Spaulding, Under
Secretary for Department of Homeland Security, and Teri Takai,
were co-chairs of that committee. So we are very engaged and
recently met with the Federal partners to make sure that we can
coordinate and make sure that they're part of this process. So
we're very engaged with them.
Senator Peters. Wonderful.
Now I just want to pick up Chief Bryant and a comment you
made about when the systems, they are overwhelmed depending on
the incident. And I'm just thinking about a horror story within
Michigan, if we had a crisis at the University of Michigan
football game, which we have an awful lot of folks at the
stadium, if communications could be very, very difficult, how
do you see FirstNet handling that situation? And to the
Chairwoman as well, how can we share that we're going to be
able to handle these incredible spikes of why this network is
so important to handle these incredible spikes and usage?
Chief?
Mr. Bryant. Well, Senator, on these large-scale events,
obviously, the initial stages of it are somewhat chaotic, and
that's when we experience the most difficulty with voice
communication. But, as we have to reach outside of our own
jurisdiction at those times to gather critical information to
help us manage that incident, the data side of this is what's
really needed and what's really important. So when we reach out
to Federal agencies that could provide us mapping information
and other types of information that we would need when law
enforcement may need to reach out for intelligence-type
information, having the availability through the FirstNet for
the data is critical.
Again, depending on the locality's communication system,
you know, some are very robust systems out there; some are not
so much at this point. So I look at this as somewhat as a
safety net in those times that, if your voice does start to
fail you a little, voice communications do start to fail or get
overwhelmed, you have that backup with FirstNet on the data
side to be able to exchange critical data.
Ms. Swenson. Just a couple of comments. First of all, going
back to my comments about a dedicated network. First of all,
that's a lot of capacity in 20 megahertz. We have 20 megahertz
and that's a lot of capacity, but as you indicated, we
sometimes have spikes.
We will, through the RFP process, get someone to actually
want to use that access capacity and they will be using the
network and obviously we will be getting revenue for that. The
beauty of long-term evolution, LTE technology, that has
something called priority and preemption. So even if there are
people using the network, those folks will come off the network
and public safety will be given priority. This is the first
time this has ever been done.
Having been in telecommunications for a long time, people
talk about priority and preemption but it's all been done
manually. This is done automatically. We're doing testing in
our PSCR labs in Boulder right now to validate that it's more
than just a vaporware. We have vender technology in our labs
and we're actually testing it. So the good news is that it
works.
I also think it's important to mention, because this is a
big change for public safety. You know, public safety is used
to working in vertical organizations; fire, you know, law
enforcement, EMS. This is creating a very horizontal ability to
communicate. As a result of that, we have an advisory group
called the Public Safety Advisory Council, and they are
actually looking at how this new organization is going to work
local operations. Because I think it's going to change the way,
frankly, public safety operates. I think it's all good, but
it's going to be very different. And I think we are going to
enjoy as we see this technology roll out, things that we aren't
even thinking about today. Much like you see in technology for
consumers.
So I think it's very exciting but it's going to be a big
change for public safety. But I think those are the important
things about the public safety network that are going make a
very, very big difference.
Senator Peters. All right. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Peters.
Senator Fischer.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Swenson, can you give us an idea when this is all going
to be fully operational? Do you have a window of time there?
Ms. Swenson. It's always a great question.
As I said, we have the strategic roadmap that lays out the
time-frame of getting through our state consultation, issuing
the RFP, getting the response, and then obviously awarding, you
know, to the winner of the process. What we don't know today is
what might happen in that process.
So if we were unencumbered by external factors, than we
could probably give you a more definitive timeframe. But my
expectation, based on what everybody's told me in the Federal
Government, is we might see a few bumps along the way. So the
goal is to, obviously, is to get that RFP out, get the
responses in, put that information together, and deliver plans
to each of the Governors of every state.
What happens during that time-frame we're hoping is smooth
and I hope you get the sense of the sense of urgency we feel
about this and how hard we're working to get that done as
quickly as possible.
Senator Fischer. Do you think you'll reach that 2022 goal
that's out there?
Ms. Swenson. Oh, yes. Yes. If we don't, I mean, we should
be shot.
[Laughter.]
Senator Fischer. Mr. Chairman, I don't even know how to
respond.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. We'll find a lesser answer for that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Fischer. I appreciate your honesty on that. When
we're looking at the GAO's estimate, that you're going to need
$12 to $47 billion over the next 10 years, how do you think--
well, first of all, do you agree with those numbers?
Ms. Swenson. Well, as I said previously, I think the GAO
report has looked at some assumptions and some estimates where
they have no visibility about the assumptions that were made. I
will tell you that very early in the process, the early folks
who were with FirstNet along with the Board, looked at a
financial model around some assumptions. We're pretty
comfortable based on our experience around the cost structure
to do this sort of thing. I think the revenue side is a little
bit harder but I think we've made some reasonable assumptions.
We've incorporated that into the model to say, is this even
feasible, can we even do this. And I thought that it was a very
important process to go through because why expend Federal
funds to go down this path only to find out that at the end of
it there is no----
Senator Fischer. Right. Can we do it?
Ms. Swenson. Yes, we can.
Senator Fischer. Can we do it----
Ms. Swenson. Assuming that the assumptions that we have in
our plan are realized, which is why the RFP process is so
important. And that's why I think the public noticed--I would
just like to highlight that the public notice that we issued on
Monday is critical to the RFP process because it starts to
answer some of the questions that I think were maybe a little
unclear in the legislation that we're trying to clarify before
we go out with RFP. We believe that it can happen but it will
only be validated through the RFP process.
Senator Fischer. And, if by chance that's not going to be
enough money, what do you see happening? Are the states going
to have to step forward and pick it up? Are we looking at
turning FirstNet into a self-sustaining entity? Where do we go
from there?
Ms. Swenson. Well, I think it's an excellent question.
We've talked a lot about that inside of FirstNet. And, if we
don't realize what we believe the value of the spectrum is--I
mean, we could literally fold up our tents and go home, which
is not a good outcome, which is why this is such an important
process, which is why we're out with state consultation, which
is why we're outreaching to people to make sure--I mean, think
about this.
We have to provide a compelling value proposition for our
first responders. We're in a very different situation than
maybe other projects where they're more mandated. We have to
actually deliver to our first responders something that they
think is worthwhile. And so, I think it changes the dynamic in
the way we approach this in terms of how we approach the
project. So we're working very hard to make sure that that
happens but, if we don't realize the value of that spectrum,
it's going to be very challenging to be self-sustaining.
Senator Fischer. Do you think FirstNet would then put in a
claim for more of the money that comes from the sale of
spectrum? When you say you don't realize the value of
spectrum----
Ms. Swenson. You know, we're not looking for more money
actually. You know, we're not looking for----
Senator Fischer. You know, that is nice to hear.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Swenson. You know, I know that's rare, that's rare, but
we take that honestly very seriously, which is why you I think
you see such a dedicated team at FirstNet and why I think
Senator Booker talked about the importance of having people
who've done this before; so that you really have a sense of
confidence that it can be accomplished and why it's so
important that the RFP be very well done.
We believe that there is interest in our spectrum. So, I
mean, we have a fundamental belief, and we validated that,
frankly, through conversations we've had with folks. I mean,
there's never enough spectrum. I mean, it's like gold; right?
It really is really valuable. So even with priority and
preemption we think, like I said, it's very good spectrum and I
think we have people out there who are more than interested in
being part of that. So we're confident that that will prove to
be the assumption that was correct.
Senator Fischer. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you to the Senator from Nebraska and
next up is Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I found a remark earlier, Ms. Swenson, that you made
somewhat staggering. That it takes nine to 10 months to hire
someone. Did I hear correctly?
Ms. Swenson. Unfortunately, yes, you did.
Senator Blumenthal. So you have the funding you need.
Ms. Swenson. Correct.
Senator Blumenthal. And the spectrum that's necessary.
Ms. Swenson. Correct.
Senator Blumenthal. The two essential components that have
been commonly identified, but you are in effect, I don't think
it's too strong a word to say, handicapped even crippled by
procurement procedures including hiring procedures that
essentially are ossified and completely inadequate to the
urgent task that you face. And you've used the work urgent to
describe it. I think all of us would agree.
Ms. Swenson. Right.
Senator Blumenthal. What can be changed in those
procurement policies, which have so handicapped other branches
of government as well in similarly urgent tasks, particularly
in the hiring area?
Ms. Swenson. As I said, Senator, we're working with
Department of Commerce and the Secretary's staff to see what we
can do. I think in addition to just the Federal process, I
think we have some things internal to FirstNet, NTIA, and
Commerce that I think we can look at. We're looking at the
cycle time of that and what is getting in the way. Why is it
taking 2 months to write a job description? Why is it taking 2
months to hire a firm to hire people? It shouldn't take that
long.
And so, we're looking to see what we can do to compress
that, which would significantly enhance our ability to get the
job done. So I'm just telling you, we're working very hard and
I'd love to report back to you on the progress that we're
making on that.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, in each of those steps that
you've identified, OPM has to be a partner; correct?
Ms. Swenson. You know, I'm probably not as----
Senator Blumenthal. Under current procedures.
Ms. Swenson. I'm not as familiar. I think Deputy Secretary
Andrews might be able to answer that question.
Mr. Andrews. If I could give a little more context on that,
which is one of the things we've done, and actually has moved
FirstNet over to the Commerce Alternative Personnel System,
which is a more streamlined and frankly more flexible process
than the normal OPM process. You know, there are undoubtedly
challenges because of the safeguard that are built in the
Federal law in terms of hiring within the Federal Government
that, as you point out, this is urgent and frankly the needs of
FirstNet are incredibly special.
Senator Blumenthal. What about, Ms. Swenson and Mr.
Secretary, giving FirstNet direct hire authority?
Ms. Swenson. Good. You start and I'll finish.
Mr. Andrews. I am happy to start that.
We have made that request.
Senator Blumenthal. You have made that request?
Mr. Andrews. It has not been granted but within the Federal
Government.
Senator Blumenthal. When did you make that request?
Mr. Andrews. I would have to pull the exact dates.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, give me, if you can, an
approximate date.
Mr. Andrews. Probably----
Ms. Swenson. It was quite a while ago.
Mr. Andrews. Yes. Eight or nine months ago. And part of the
reason we've gone to the Commerce alternative the cap system
like you----
Senator Blumenthal. And what have they said to you?
Mr. Andrews. Up until now, it has not been granted based on
the nature of the hiring and what they think the hiring to the
pools out there.
Senator Blumenthal. Have they responded negatively or have
they just not responded?
Mr. Andrews. Negatively.
Senator Blumenthal. And what----
Ms. Swenson. I would just clarify that----
Senator Blumenthal. I'm sorry, Ms. Swenson.
Ms. Swenson. I would just clarify that just a little bit.
They responded negatively to our first request. They have not
responded to our second request.
Senator Blumenthal. And when was your second request made?
Mr. Andrews. It was August 2014.
Senator Blumenthal. August 2014. So that's quite a while
ago.
Ms. Swenson. Right.
Senator Blumenthal. Let me just suggest that, you know, for
the first year and a half, I believe I'm correct in saying,
your board essentially functioned. Has the staff? Now, you have
110 employees which seems----
Ms. Swenson. Low.
Senator Blumenthal.--inadequate. Low is right.
The success of this very, very important national priority
depends on having the best and the brightest. There is simply
no way you can compete for the limited pool of highly skilled,
talented people who are being hired by Google, Apple, you know,
there is huge demand for these people.
Ms. Swenson. Correct.
Senator Blumenthal. And you're telling them, ``Sorry, we
can't let you know for another 10 months.''
And they're going to say, ``Thanks, but no thanks.''
Right?
Ms. Swenson. In fact, they have.
Senator Blumenthal. And they have.
Ms. Swenson. Correct.
Senator Blumenthal. I'm sure that they have in large
numbers.
Ms. Swenson. Correct.
Senator Blumenthal. So, if I may respectfully suggest, the
Federal Government is failing you. And unless we expose you to
capital punishment----
[Laughter.]
Senator Blumenthal.--I think we have an obligation to
compel the relevant agencies, principally OPM and anybody else
concerned, to do better and to do more and to do it more
quickly so that you can succeed in this task.
Ms. Swenson. Senator, we'd really appreciate that. Thank
you for your comments.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thanks, Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Cantwell, Senator Wicker----
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
The Chairman.--Senator Daines.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, one of the issues that strikes me in this
discussion is how fast you can go and whether there's more the
private sector can do but I think the key phrase here is
interoperability and then, my understanding that some of those
pilots were turned down because they really were ensuring
interoperability.
I mean, the private sector can get it all done in a second,
but I guarantee you it'll be a closed-loop system based on
somebody's technology that they just build and build and build
and build and build off their technology. So if you want to
give somebody the grand prize I guess we could do that, but the
issue here is making sure we have interoperability. Is that
correct? And is that why some of the pilots were delayed
because they weren't really conquering that?
Ms. Swenson. Well, let me respond to that. And I can
respond pretty specifically because, as a board member, I
actually, in the very beginning days of FirstNet, negotiated
the leases. As you know, those BTOP projects were in existence
prior to FirstNet becoming a reality. They were put on hold
just to make sure that they were, because they were focused on
broadband, and to make sure that they were consistent with what
we were trying to do with FirstNet. The good news is we were
able to actually move some of those forward.
Some of the difficulties that we experienced, one of the
requirements was that that plan that the organization presented
had to be self-sustainable. So, in other words, they needed to
show financial viability. And, in some of those cases, it
didn't turn out to be that. And I will tell you, personally
Senator, that I personally worked very hard to try to get those
projects completed because we know how important they are.
As I said, we've learned a lot from these projects that
we've already incorporated into the technical work that the
technical team is doing. It has really helped us in terms of
understanding the government assets and how we might utilize
those. I think that NTIA has been involved in that activity as
well because they have a different role than FirstNet does. But
I will tell you that we work very hard to get those projects on
board because we are learning a lot from them
Senator Cantwell. OK.
So I want to ask you about when we will see functionality
because it is important. So while I understand the issue of
interoperability, in making sure that that actually is
implemented throughout the network, I think the state grants
are very important. I think we have this horrible incident that
we're almost to its 1 year anniversary, which is the Oso
mudslide, which literally cut two communities in half and they
were without communication and it required 30 different
agencies to respond.
And I think everybody now knows exactly what we want and
what it's going to take in this particular area because of the
topography; you have some communication challenges just in
that. But I mean, literally, at one point we were just trying
to greenlight basically putting the broadband back up for like
a mile connected to the trees. That's what we had to do,
because we couldn't have residents of our--we had, I mean, over
40 people lost their lives in this incident. Everybody wanted
to respond but we literally didn't even have broadband
communication until we greenlighted putting it back up and
hanging it along tree limbs, just so first responders and
everybody could respond.
So I hope that we will see the urgency that we have to get
some of these pilots done. And that we take these state plans
and make them sew up the actual needs so that then you can lay
your work on top of them in a faster fashion. And we get some
of these demonstrations and pilots up and running right away.
So when would we have that functionality?
Ms. Swenson. So let me see if I--I'm trying to listen to
all of the comments that you had in there. And I think it's
important to understand that the pilots are important for us
relative to building out our nationwide network. And that is
our first priority.
I know that there are many, many people who would like us
to do many more pilots. And I will tell you, it would be a bit
of a dilution of our efforts. As we indicated, we are resource
constrained at this point now. And so, what we want to do is
focus our effort and energy, on the public notice that we just
issued, which, by the way, really did a lot to support the
rural states issues if you've seen that. I mean, it's a really
important issue for the coverage there. Focus our----
Senator Cantwell. When would we see functionality of one of
those?
Ms. Swenson. The functionality of one of the pilots?
Senator Cantwell. Yes.
Ms. Swenson. Well, actually there's a pilot in Colorado
called ADCOM that's in the Boulder area that is actually up and
functioning. We have another project that is not actually a
broadband project but it's in Harris County, Texas and they
have an operational system. In fact, I went and visited Harris
County probably in January of 2013. So they are actually
experiencing and using these with first responders to test some
of the functionality and the interoperability. So some of these
projects are up and running.
In New Jersey, we have a deployable project. They are in
the process of actually getting the deployable so they can test
the ability to operationalize those deployable----
Senator Cantwell. Well, I'm sure our state is very
aggressive. So I'll have to get--I know my time is running out
here. We'll have to get some details about what our state is
doing and when we will see a pilot within the State of
Washington.
Ms. Swenson. We'll be happy to spend time with you.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Ms. Swenson. Thank you.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Senator Wicker.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, the Broadband Technology Opportunities
Program, BTOP, came about as a result of the Stimulus Act. In
2012, the Tax Relief Act came along and now we have FirstNet.
Mississippi was one of the grantees under BTOP and moved
forward very aggressively with greater speed than any other
recipient. The Department and our delegation have had numerous
discussions about our disappointment with how this has turned
out.
I understand FirstNet maintains it could not reach a
spectrum lease agreement with the State of Mississippi. This
was unfortunate because tens of millions of state and Federal
tax dollars had been spent, significant fiscal assets deployed
and the system weeks away from going live. Mississippi would
have provided an early demonstration of the great potential
broadband holds for first responders.
I assume you're aware that the entire Mississippi
delegation met with Assistant Secretary Strickling in 2013 to
impress on him how important restarting the original BTOP
project was to all of us. At that point, I personally tried to
help FirstNet, NTIA and the State of Mississippi reach an
agreement. Assistant Secretary Strickling then agreed to work
with us to find a way forward, but this has not come to
fruition. NTIA has justified the suspension of Mississippi's
grant as saving taxpayers' money by ``avoiding investments that
might have to be replaced if they are incompatible with the
ultimate nationwide architecture of the new public safety
broadband network.''
However, one of the fundamental conditions imposed on all
700-megahertz public safety broadband waivers is the commitment
of the waiver recipients to design, develop, and deploy a
network that is fully interoperable. So that argument does not
seem to hold water.
Furthermore, Mississippi's contract with its vendors
required complete compliance with ``all rules, specifications,
and functionalities.''
That may change per the FCC or NTIA during the build out of
the nationwide network. Understandably, we in Mississippi are
disappointed. Given these assurances by the State of
Mississippi and the vendors, how exactly is NTIA saving
taxpayer money, especially when in fact the agency is now
telling Mississippi to spend money to dismantle the LTE
equipment already deployed?
Mr. Andrews. Well, Senator, so as you know, there were
seven pilot projects looked at. Four of them were approved.
Three of them are not approved, including the $70 million
Mississippi grant. And, you know, we were deeply disappointed
as well because we wanted to try to make this work. But, at the
end of the day, the state and NTIA couldn't agree on terms
because the state's plan didn't provide the necessary level of
detail we needed to meet the statutory requirements of the act.
And, as you know, under the BTOP program, there were specific
statutory requirements that this had to meet, and the
Mississippi plan that came forward wasn't a viable alternative
that met the statutory requirements.
One of the things that NTIA is committed to doing is
helping----
Senator Wicker. Statutory requirements from 2012 or from
the 2010 Economic Stimulus Act?
Mr. Andrews. I believe from the Economic--for the original
BTOP program. And one of the things, it's my understanding is
that Mississippi program didn't provide broadband coverage. And
so, that was one of the challenges of this.
But, look, we wanted to try to make this work. The FirstNet
team worked very hard and long hours with Mississippi trying to
find a way to make it work. Three of the projects were not, in
the end though, able to go forward because they, for one reason
or another, including this one.
NTIA is working with the State of Mississippi to dispose of
the equipment. Mississippi, the medical communications
equipment held by the hospitals and the ambulances will be
retained in Mississippi. So we're trying to keep as much of
that value, but NTIA is committed to helping to dispose of the
excess equipment, frankly, to avoid a loss to the taxpayers.
Senator Wicker. Mr. Secretary, we were weeks away from
deployment. Mississippi was a leader in deploying a network for
first responders. Based on the statute that was enacted in
2010. Then the Federal Government made the decision to
dismantle the original BTOP project, forcing the state to start
over. Mississippi has already accomplished the goal of NTIA's
implementation program, which is why the state turned down the
offered SLIGP grant. Mississippi today has a mature governance
structure for the network that was created in 2005. The state
was only weeks away from turning on its broadband network when
the BTOP grant was suspended by NTIA.
I hope that your offer to continue working with the state
comes to fruition.
Ms. Swenson was invited over a year ago to come to
Mississippi. For whatever reason, that meeting has not taken
place yet. But I can tell you that we in Mississippi, our
entire delegation Democrat and Republican, are very concerned
about this, very disappointed at the wasting of Federal money
from the economic stimulus program. And we are particularly
disappointed that MED-COM is not able to go forward; a project
that has received essential equipment and would allow first
responders to transmit lifesaving data to provide hospitals,
which support vital medical services to proceed on.
My time has expired but I hope this hearing will result in
some purposeful action on the part of the department and
FirstNet to make things work in Mississippi.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wicker.
Senator Daines.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Daines. Thank you.
I come from Montana. And, in a state like Montana, we have
almost a tale of two types of environments, very rural
environments across most of our state. At the same time,
because of technology, it has removed geography as a
constraint. We are able to build now world-class companies in
Montana because we can attract and retain great talent because
of our rural nature of the quality of life. We have fly fishing
streams and mountains and so forth.
It also helps us improve our first responder services, the
technology. And encouraged, in terms of what FirstNet could do
to improve public safety, by coordinating these communication
capabilities. When we have incidents or 50 to 100 miles away in
terms of maybe a medical emergency, where we could bring
electronically the doctor to the location of an incident, is
the difference between life and death. In a state like Montana,
we have some very important national assets. We have a third of
the nation's ICBMs are located in Montana, 150 warheads. We
share a boarder with three Canadian provinces.
So without perhaps as background, I am concerned about the
definition of rural. FirstNet plans to deploy on top of the
existing private infrastructure first and that makes complete
logic, makes perfect logic and sense to me, except for the fact
that states like Montana have very limited 4G LTE coverage.
And, in fact, in tribal lands it's virtually non-existent. What
sort of contingency plans do we have for these types of areas
like, for example, the Northern Cheyenne Reservation that
doesn't even have 3G service let alone 4G LTE?
And perhaps Secretary, maybe you could take the first shot
at that?
Mr. Andrews. With your permission, Senator, I'd actually
like to allow Sue take this because I think she can answer that
question.
Senator Daines. All right. She's smiling. She thinks she's
ready to go. Yes.
Ms. Swenson. I'm happy to answer that.
First of all, I think it's important, Senator, that you
know that the public notice that we issued on Monday takes a
really bold step about rural and making sure that rural is
taken care of in this total plan. So we know how important that
is for states like yourself. And so we are spending a lot of
time on that particular topic. And we also, in our first public
notice, Senator, asked for public comment on what rural meant.
Because, in the legislation, it could have different
interpretations and we want to make sure that we have some
consistency on those.
We've gotten a lot of good feedback on that and we'll
incorporate that. And I'm assuming that your state probably
gave us some feedback on that particular topic. If not, we're
happy to take that.
In terms of tribal, I think it's important that you
understand that we take the tribal consultation very seriously.
As you know, there are 566 recognized tribes in the U.S. All
the different states have a variety of tribes that we need to
consider. Tribal organization should be part of state
consultation. So when that occurs, the single point-of-contact,
it's important that we make sure that that representation is
actually part of the state consultation.
We, as an organization, actually hired and have a person
dedicated to the tribal organization so that they're fully
represented. We also, as part of the Public Safety Advisory
Council, have a tribal working group. One of our board members,
Kevin McGinnis, has actually been traveling the U.S. meeting
with all the different organizations. So I just wanted you to
know that rural is important, tribal is important, and I
believe that we're taking steps to make sure that those areas
are consistent----
Senator Daines. What is the preliminary thinking where the
infrastructure doesn't exist today on 4G LTE around what
FirstNet will do? Will it be, will they wait until the
infrastructure is there or will they circumvent that and move
ahead and put the infrastructure in?
Ms. Swenson. Actually, that's going to be part of our RFP
process. And we'd like to get feedback from the partners and
the vendors who will be responding, is how we can not only
cover urban but cover rural. Because the idea is is that we
would make that as high a priority as our urban coverage. I
think there was some comments about leveraging existing
infrastructure. But part of the RFP needs to address the rural
coverage. And the folks responding to the RFP need to respond
on how they plan to do that.
Senator Daines. Yes, and of course the paradox here is that
some of those areas are in the greatest need right now of
telecommunications.
Ms. Swenson. We understand which is why we're making it
priority.
Senator Daines. Great.
As I understand also, maybe for Ms. Swenson, the Governor
of each state would have the option to accept or opt out of the
FirstNet plan. And I am not hearing that Montana is planning to
opt out, but I know there was curiosity around, if a Governor
did opt out of a plan, they're responsible for coordinating an
effort and submitting that plan to the FCC. Any sense of what
the cost associated with opting out versus accepting the plan
for some of the states might be?
Ms. Swenson. I mean, it's a great question and I think a
lot of people are really trying to figure that out. I think
it's important to understand that you're not really opting out
of the nationwide network. You're really assuming
responsibility for building your own radio access network. All
states, whether they use FirstNet radio access network or build
their own, will connect to our national core. That's what
creates the interoperability across the Nation.
Now, in terms of the cost, that will be something for your
team to, you know, in Montana to determine. We're going to give
the Governor a plan that will actually lay out the coverage we
have planned based on the consultation we do with your state in
terms of the priorities, and then we will give you what the
cost of that is or the pricing to your end users. You will then
have that to make a determination as the state. And the
Governor makes that decision as to whether or not you want to
take on responsibility for----
Senator Daines. OK, so you'll have a cost and everything--
--
Ms. Swenson. It'll be in the----
Senator Daines.--with a fiduciary responsibility if there
was an opt-out?
Ms. Swenson. We won't determine your cost. You're going to
determine that. You're going to issue an RFP and determine
that. We will tell you what our plan is. You can than compare
it to what you think building your own radio access network
would cost.
Senator Daines. OK. Thanks.
I know I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines.
Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to you and Ranking Member Nelson for holding this
important hearing. As a former prosecutor and co-chair along
with Senator Burr of the 9-1-1 Caucus in the Senate, I know how
important it is to support our first responders. I'm also the
state that had that bridge collapse, and while everyone saw on
TV the firefighter, the first responder show up and repeatedly
dive into that water to look for survivors and all of the work
of the emergency responders what people didn't see were the 77
men and women at the Minneapolis Emergency Communications
Center who took those calls. And while a number of people died,
it could have been so much worse because people were able to
get to hospitals. There were dozens more cars in there and
people survived because of our first responders.
I've worked hard to strengthen our country's emergency
response network in part by sponsoring and working on the
legislation that led to the creation of FirstNet. I think it's
critical to our communications infrastructure. And Congress
intended it to be built on a combination of new and existing
infrastructure.
I know that Senator Thune and Senator Daines and others,
when I just heard have been talking about the rural issues so
I'm not going to focus on that. That's important to me. But,
Ms. Swenson, are you committed to making sure that as FirstNet
formally launches partnerships, that opportunities will be
available to entities of all size? I know that Newcore Wireless
based in St. Cloud is currently participating in a pilot
project with FirstNet in Oak River and it's a good trial
project. But I want to make sure you're going to continue to
work with entities of all sizes.
Ms. Swenson. Yes. In fact, I think it's important to
understand that the process is designed to do that. We have a
responsibility to make sure that we deploy a nationwide network
at the most effective cost structure. So, as we go out and talk
to people who have different assets who want to participate in
the request for proposal, everyone will have an opportunity to
do that.
And we will weigh those options and also look at the
complexity of the design and also the speed to market.
Those are the things that we have to consider. But,
certainly, we're welcoming one and all because this is going to
take a really integrated and joint effort to make this work.
Senator Klobuchar. OK.
The Spectrum Act also included an amendment I worked to
include that created a funding mechanism for more than 115
million for Next Generation 9-1-1 research and grants
coordinated by NTIA and NHTSA, and I continue to have, as my
top priority, making sure that we not only have the nationwide
network in place but we integrate the NextGen technologies that
are already transforming public safety real-time video text
messaging.
Ms. Swenson, what involvement has FirstNet had with public
safety answer points and the 9-1-1 community, the NG9-1-1?
Ms. Swenson. Actually, we're in communication with the 9-1-
1 organizations very frequently. In fact, I'm planning to go to
the NETA conference probably in the month of June because we
know how critical it is to the overall system. So it's an
ongoing dialogue.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Mr. Andrews, what are NTIA and NIST doing to further the
NextGen 9-1-1 operations in coordination with FirstNet?
Mr. Andrews. So that is a great question. And one of the
things that we've done is in a partnership between NTIA and
NIST, and actually in Senator Gardner's state near Boulder,
we've created the Public Safety Communications Research
program, which is our effort to really push forward the, you
know, into that next generation of public safety
communications. As you know, as well, the NTIA administers the
NextGen 9-1-1 program, and that's something that we're working
on.
Senator Klobuchar. OK, very good. Well then, we should
invite Senator Gardner to join our 9-1-1 Caucus. It's a very
exciting group.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. We have a lot of emergencies that we
respond to.
My last question, Ms. Swenson, is I understand that
Minnesota was the second state to have its consultation with
FirstNet last September. What are some of the takeaways from
that meeting with the stakeholders in Minnesota?
Ms. Swenson. You know, I think, as indicated earlier, I
think it's important that we learn from each of the states
their individual circumstances. Every state has a set of
circumstances that are very different. Your topography is
different; your, you know, where your priorities are are
different; and we're learning in each of those consultation
what exactly is unique to your state so we can incorporate that
into the RFP process.
Senator Klobuchar. OK, very good. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Udall.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Chairman Thune, and
thank you for focusing this hearing on this very, very
important topic. And let me first just say that I want FirstNet
to succeed ensuring our Nation's first responders have the
communication tools they need; should be a top priority of this
Committee.
Despite lessons learned from the terrorist attacks of 9/11,
our first responders still do not have nationwide interoperable
communications network. As many of you know, in an emergency
this can be a matter of life or death.
In my home state of New Mexico, I am pleased that the
Recovery Act Broadband Grant helped upgrade the state's public
safety communications. This hopefully puts my state a step
ahead as FirstNet becomes operable.
One concern I have is that Congress sometimes makes good
policies but then fails to follow through by adequately funding
their implementation. And I think that could well be a case
here. Building FirstNet is clearly no easy task and I want
Congress to give FirstNet a chance to succeed. It is important
first responders have the communications tools they need to
protect all of us.
Now, many Senators have already raised the rural issue. I
think rural is tremendously important in New Mexico. And so, I
want to you to focus on that.
Ms. Swenson, you talked in your written testimony, and I
think to a question asked by Senator Daines, about the tribal
issues and how tribes are going to be included. I want to
applaud you on having a person dedicated to the tribes. I mean,
that's usually the way it works best; is somebody that really
understands these tribal issues, develops a long-term
relationship and works with them.
Could you expand a little more on you testimony, your
written testimony, about how you're going to make sure that
tribes aren't left out in this moving forward?
Ms. Swenson. Certainly.
You know, as you know, the act really requires that we
engage with tribal. So there was no ambiguity about that. So
we're very clear about that. But, setting that aside, FirstNet
really understands the important of tribe. We, as you said, we
have a person dedicated to that within FirstNet, and I think
that's actually unique for an organization like us to actually
dedicate a resource to that.
We also have, as part of the Public Safety Advisory
Council, a tribal working group and that is focused on tribal
issues so that it's represented within the public safety
community and the tribal group. That particular group, a small
group, had a meeting in Washington, D.C. just 2 weeks ago.
And so, it is a very high priority for us. In fact, when I
was in town hall meeting a couple weeks ago, the
representative, the tribal representative from our organization
was there at the town hall. We had tribal representation at the
town hall meeting and he was actually going to get in his car
and drive along the cost and meet with as many tribal
organizations as possible. So he's out and about.
And, as I mentioned, one of our board members, Kevin
McGinnis who is from the EMS community, has actually been
taking on that responsibility as a board member to go out and
make sure that we're reaching out, making the tribes aware of
it, and also making sure that the tribal representation is part
of consultation. Because, it's really important they're at
those meetings, at the state meetings, so that we can
understand their perspective as well. So we're very, very
focused on that and consider it a very high priority.
Senator Udall. And as you said, the consultation part is
tremendously important. I mean the tribes really look to the
Federal Government to look at and see that they're going to be
communicated with and consulted with on these kinds of issues.
So we appreciate what you're doing and hope we have your
commitment to work and make sure that they're not left out.
Ms. Swenson. You absolutely do.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Ms. Swenson. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Gardner.
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the witnesses for your testimony and time today. I apologize
for coming into the hearing late. I was attending an AUMF
hearing with Secretary Kerry downstairs.
So I just want to thank all you, again, for being here. And
want to thank Ms. Swenson, particularly, for the work you're
doing, given a very difficult yet vitally important task to
ensure that we have a nationwide public safety network.
FirstNet, if done right, can help first responders across the
country do their jobs more quickly and more effectively. And no
one knows this better than Colorado who has endured wildfires
and flooding over the past several years of great magnitude.
So my questions stem from a place where I want to help
ensure that the state has exactly what it needs to react to
disasters such as these in the future, and I want the network
to succeed. And I'm happy to talk about the 9-1-1 Caucus too
but I think she's left so we'll have to figure that one out
later.
Ms. Swenson, one of the concerns that I have had from the
state, and I've heard from the state, is that the current path
forward for FirstNet does not include the use of public assets
that are already and willing to be utilized by the public
safety network. My understanding is that you first need to know
who the commercial partners are before you move forward with
utilizing, excuse me, utilizing public assets. Isn't there an
argument to be made that we shouldn't be using this and we
should be using these public assets?
Ms. Swenson. Well, I think it's a very good question. And
you weren't here earlier, but let me just state what I stated
earlier. And that is, in the early days of FirstNet we actually
thought that getting that information about government assets
would be very, very important for building out the network.
What we've learned, through our BTOP projects, and LA in
particular, is that this is more difficult than we anticipated
in terms of the unique circumstances in every state about
coming to a memorandum of understanding about those assets, the
leasing of excess capacity on those assets. Whatever the
circumstances are, they turned out to be much more complex than
we had anticipated.
So what we would like to do is obviously know about those
assets, but take that into consideration after we determine who
the partner is and then determine what additional perhaps
coverage or capability those assets can add to the existing
plan. And so, we just think from a sequencing standpoint and
from a complexity standpoint, as I said earlier, we want to
make sure that we're dedicating our resources now on getting
the national network built.
And so, it has been a change from what we had originally
anticipated but we're very comfortable with this approach.
Additionally, if there are assets that an organization in the
state would like to be considered as part of the nationwide
network, again, I think it's important that we look at speed to
deployment, complexity, and cost. Because we have a
responsibility to make sure that this is done in the most
effective and efficient way possible.
Senator Gardner. And some of the follow up questions I have
on the sequencing, the complexity and then the speed with which
we're getting this done. You mentioned, I believe, it was told
to me by my staff at the beginning, you said that Adams County
is functioning.
Ms. Swenson. Yes.
Senator Gardner. And so, thank you for that.
But, if they've met all of the international standards and
if interoperability is not an issue there, then, you know,
we're looking at 3 years, 4 years maybe, down the road. People
in Colorado need to get this done now. Does Adams County have
to wait until they receive a state plan to proceed? Can
Colorado move forward, and build it out and still be a part of
FirstNet?
I'm concerned that we have places in Colorado, significant
metropolitan populations with rural areas in forested terrain
that need to move forward and yet this is taking time and we
could build out. How do you respond to that?
Ms. Swenson. Well, you know, again, this is a very complex
issue, as you know. And we're very excited about what Adams
County is doing and it has become a good project for people to
come and see how this new technology is actually working. I
think it's really important for people to understand our focus
is getting on the nationwide network. And we have limited
resources at FirstNet in order to spend time on these
individual projects. And so, it would dilute our ability to
work on the nationwide plan.
And so, it's a tradeoff for us, very frankly, Senator. And
it's a difficult one because I'd love to have all the resources
in the world to, you know, to do a lot more in a lot of
different areas. But we have an obligation to move this as
quickly as possible, so we've had to make some tradeoffs.
Senator Gardner. And perhaps we can follow up a little bit
on that, but I wanted to shift to the rural conversation that
sounds like so many people brought up. In previous experience
that we've had with some funding from the Federal Government
that was intended and designed to go to unserved or underserved
areas, money was spent in areas where it could easily be spent
and those areas where money would be spent in difficult areas
to reach for networks and others. That money was not spent and
then, by the time they got to those areas, which were difficult
in Colorado to reach, the money was gone. And, they had to look
elsewhere for opportunity.
Are there areas or parts of the country, parts of Colorado,
where FirstNet will not be building out into because it doesn't
make sense or it's not responsible?
Ms. Swenson. Well, I think that's an excellent question.
First of all, I think it's important for you to know that
the funding in the second notice ensures rural build out. I
think if you look at the public notice that we just issued on
Monday, there is assurance for rural build out.
The consultation that we do with every state is really
talking about the priorities. Not that we would never build,
but we want to understand where your priorities are because
obviously a network of this magnitude, we can't just snap our
finger and turn it on 1 day. I mean it's going to have to go in
phases, but we have rural build out milestones that we need to
accomplish to make sure that we actually do that.
The response to the RFP is going to be critical and the
folks who respond to the RFP are going to have to address those
issues. That's why we're taking the information from your state
consultation and interactions that we're having with your state
and putting that into the RFP so whoever is responding knows
that that's a priority for you.
Senator Gardner. From your point of view, there's no place
in the country that has been sort of labeled as taken off the
table; so to speak?
Ms. Swenson. No. Not at all.
I'm telling, I mean, we talk more about rural than we do
urban. I mean that's how important it is to us; is that we are
constantly thinking about and making sure. And I would commend
you, you know, if you haven't seen it, and for anybody who's
listening, the second notice really assures that. And we took
great pains and spent quite a bit of time to make sure that the
very description, or situation that you described, won't happen
here.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
Ms. Swenson. Thank you.
Senator Gardner. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gardner. And I appreciate
the continued emphasis on the rural issues.
Ms. Swenson, I'm sure you got that loudly and clearly
today. There's a lot of interest on this Committee.
Ms. Swenson. Do you know what? I feel exactly the same way.
The Chairman. Good.
This has been a great, great panel. Thank you. I thought
this shed a lot of light on a subject that has needed to be
discussed, which is why it was important to have this oversight
hearing to raise some of these issues and ask some of these
questions. We appreciate the panel's willingness to appear
today and to respond to those questions. And we'll continue to
provide that oversight.
This is an important investment; something that has a lot
of ramifications for our first responders and our public safety
community in making sure that we're able to respond in an
effective and timely way when things happen. So I want to make
sure we get it right and this Committee will do everything we
can to stay on top of it.
So thank you all for being here today. The hearing record--
oh. All right.
OK. All right.
The Senator from Massachusetts is here.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. I apologize, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank you for convening today's hearing. We understand very
well how important it is to have a strong, reliable first
responder network. From the over 100 inches of snow this winter
to Hurricane Sandy to the marathon bombing, we know how
critical it is that our emergency responders have dependable
communication tools that allow them to work and to talk to each
other safely. And that's why I have always supported FirstNet,
because it fulfills one of the most important recommendations
of the 9/11 Commission: the creation of a nationwide
interoperable public safety network. It ensures that our first
responders have the tools which they need.
So Ms. Swenson, we must ensure that FirstNet is reliable
across the entire country. However, each part of the country
faces its own set of difficulties that will challenge the
network's resiliency, whether it's blizzards, hurricanes,
tornados, earthquakes, the list is endless. We have to makes
sure that the network has the capacity as it actually responds
to each one of these different challenges.
So my first question is it's supposed to establish the
advanced network for the twenty-first century public safety
needs, given that the states and the municipalities already
have existing public safety networks, how will FirstNet work
with and utilize these resources in building out and deploying
the national public safety broadband network?
Ms. Swenson. Senator, thank you for the question.
We are interested, as you are, in making this a reliable
network. And we were just talking to Senator Gardner about a
similar question, but I'll be happy to repeat it.
The issue with the current assets within the state, when we
started FirstNet, we thought that that would be the way to go
is to do an inventory of those assets and then build upon
those. It turns out that one of our projects in Las Angeles,
the BTOP program in Las Angeles, has informed us and been very
useful in helping us understand the challenges with actually
using existing assets because of the difficulty of developing
memorandums of understanding, leasing excess capacity. And it
has been extremely useful in helping us understand that it was
probably a little harder than we thought to do.
Now, that doesn't mean that we wouldn't utilize those in
some fashion, but we would go through the RFP process, award
partners to actually deploy the network, and then determine how
those assets could be utilized. And also, those assets,
depending on who owns them, they could be part of responding to
the request for proposal. Because, deploying this network, as
you indicated, it's important that we do this in an urgent
fashion and that's where we're dedicating our resources to do
that.
Senator Markey. OK.
You know, on Patriots' Day, 2013, right in the middle of
downtown Boston with a million people watching the marathon,
there really is no other event like this. We then had the
marathon bombing attack.
Ms. Swenson. Right.
Senator Markey. And so, on the one hand you have the
government response. On the other hand you have a private
cellular network that you also want to have working and you
have a million people all calling, ``What's happening to my
family member running?'' Or even, in this instance, where
people who weren't running were also injured.
So can you talk a little bit about the capacity----
Ms. Swenson. Yes.
Senator Markey.--in emergencies for the private cellular
network to be able to also provide the kinds of information
which is necessary for people to be able to respond properly?
Ms. Swenson. Sure.
As you know, the commercial networks today get really
burdened when there's an incident whether it's small or large
as all of us pick up our phones and make a phone call. And so,
it really prohibits the first responders from being able to use
the commercial network.
With FirstNet, it'll be a dedicated network. And, even with
the leasing of the excess capacity for other use, the
technology today, Senator, has something called priority and
preemption. And so, unlike the networks today, that technology
will enable first responders to get access to the network and
to remove those folks who are using the network who are not
critical. And so, we believe that that particular capability
really differentiates FirstNet from commercial networks today.
That is what commercial networks can't do.
Additionally, we are working in the state consultation
meetings to look at how to harden those networks. So assuming
we have a commercial partner that partners with us along with
other folks, we would actually, we're going to be in a
different band class and we will harden those networks relative
to each particular state.
Senator Markey. Excellent.
Ms. Swenson. OK.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Markey.
And again, thanks very much to the panel. And the hearing
record will be open for two weeks.
During that time, Senators are asked to submit any
questions they have for the record. Upon receipt, the witnesses
are requested to submit their written answers to the Committee
as soon as possible.
Again, thank you very much for your participation. This
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Hon. Bruce H. Andrews
Question. Stakeholders have raised concerns that, while FirstNet is
an ``independent authority'' within NTIA, it is not sufficiently
independent in its operations and is saddled with Federal rules that
are setting FirstNet up for failure. Do you agree with these concerns?
What has the Commerce Department done to eliminate unnecessary red tape
for FirstNet?
Answer. In enacting the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act of 2012, Congress created the First Responder Network Authority
(FirstNet) as an independent authority within NTIA, which is part of
the Department of Commerce. Thus, FirstNet is both part of NTIA and
independent of it, particularly with respect to program-related
decisions not expressly assigned to NTIA under the Act.
The Act's placement of FirstNet within NTIA makes FirstNet a unique
Federal entity. It is essentially a start-up organization charged with
ensuring the building, deployment, and operation of a nationwide public
safety broadband network within the applicable rules and regulations of
the Federal Government. I agree that this framework poses challenges in
balancing the goal of speedy deployment of this vital network with the
need to adhere to Federal Government hiring and procurement
requirements.
The Department actively supports FirstNet by providing certain
legal, procurement, human resources, and administrative assistance
where FirstNet does not otherwise have its own resources or direct
authority. In doing so, the Department seeks to streamline and expedite
Federal processes. For example, FirstNet is now using the Commerce
Alternative Personnel System, which should assist in speeding up the
hiring process. Additionally, the Department has supported FirstNet's
request to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for Direct Hiring
Authority, which would give it greater control over its human resources
functions.
The Department also worked closely with FirstNet to enable an
interagency agreement between FirstNet and the U.S. Department of
Interior for assisted acquisition support. This agreement gives
FirstNet dedicated acquisition resources to assist in its Request for
Proposal (RFP) process for the nationwide public safety broadband
network. Additionally, the Department is working on the long-term
solution to provide delegated authority to FirstNet to run its own
acquisition office.
The Department continues to work closely with FirstNet to ensure
that it can execute contracts and hire staff as expeditiously as
possible. While the Federal Government may not be able to move as
quickly as a private company, we are pleased with the progress FirstNet
has made to date.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Hon. Bruce H. Andrews
Question 1. In your testimony to the Committee, you indicated that
the State of Mississippi and NTIA couldn't agree on terms because the
State's plan ``didn't provide the necessary level of detail we needed
to meet the statutory requirements of the Act.'' Further, you
maintained, ``The Mississippi plan that came forward wasn't a viable
alternative that met the statutory requirements.''
In fact, if Mississippi had not met the requirements of the
Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) grant program and had
not been able to demonstrate sustainability, the State would never have
received a BTOP grant award. As you know, the Federal laws governing
access to the broadband spectrum needed to operate the Mississippi
system were changed in February 2012. As such, NTIA chose to suspend
portions of the State's grant citing interoperability concerns. The
State had already deployed a significant portion of its broadband
network and was ready to go live within weeks of the NTIA suspension.
The State has honored the terms of the BTOP grant award and has not
deviated from these commitments.
My understanding is that during the build-out of the LTE network,
there was never a moment where the State was out of compliance with any
grant rules or regulations. The project was on schedule and on budget.
Considering Mississippi's original BTOP grant proposal was approved by
NTIA, please tell me exactly what details were missing and which
statutory requirements were not met?
Answer. When Congress enacted the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 (Act), it dramatically changed the landscape for
public safety broadband. NTIA approved the State of Mississippi's
(Mississippi) project in 2010, prior to the Act, when the concept of
public safety broadband was a ``network-of-networks'' model, in which
individual communities, states or regions would build networks that
would interoperate with each other. The Act mandated a new approach to
build, operate, and maintain a nationwide public safety broadband
network based on a single, national network architecture. With this new
vision in mind, the Act required the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) to grant to FirstNet the 700 MHz spectrum that was being used by
the seven public safety Broadband Technology Opportunities Program
(BTOP) grant recipients, including Mississippi, as well as additional
reallocated spectrum.
NTIA partially suspended the LTE-specific portions of the seven
public safety BTOP awards in May 2012, because of uncertainty created
by the new legislation and reallocation of spectrum to FirstNet. At the
time NTIA partially suspended Mississippi's project, the state had
drawn down $22.2 million of the $70 million in Federal funds.
Mississippi BTOP reported that all of the LTE equipment ordered was
delivered for the project; Mississippi BTOP had installed approximately
40 antennas, the Evolved Packet Core (EPC), and a few of the 143
eNodeBs. This limited deployment provided coverage far short of what
was needed to operate the network. Additionally, the project plan
Mississippi provided to NTIA during an April 2012 site visit indicated
that it planned to install the remaining antennas during the summer and
fall of 2012. When NTIA partially suspended the project, the state had
not released the request for proposal (RFP) needed to procure the end
user devices and MEDCOM equipment--the devices and equipment necessary
to use the LTE broadband system. Mississippi's grant documents showed
that the LTE system would not have been deployed and running by mid-May
2012, as many of the elements were not in place to have a viable
network. Mississippi's project schedule showed that its LTE system
would not be fully deployed until at least June 2013.
In September 2012, Mississippi's lease to operate in the 700 MHz
spectrum expired. Without access to the spectrum, Mississippi was out
of compliance with its BTOP award and did not have authority to operate
its BTOP-funded LTE system. In order to get the LTE project back on
track, Mississippi needed to enter into an agreement, consistent with
FirstNet's mission, to gain access to FirstNet's spectrum so it could
operate its network. Unfortunately, Mississippi could not agree on
lease terms with FirstNet. Mississippi sought assurances that either
FirstNet or NTIA would cover its ongoing operating costs while it built
out its network given a state budget shortfall that reduced the
available funds that the Mississippi Wireless Commission had allocated
to operate the network. FirstNet was unable to commit to taking on this
financial responsibility in advance of the state opt-in decision, and
BTOP programmatic requirements precluded NTIA from allowing BTOP funds
to pay for operating expenses. In the absence of a lease agreement with
FirstNet, the LTE portion of the project was not able to move forward.
After it was determined that no agreement could be reached between
FirstNet and Mississippi, NTIA worked closely with Mississippi to
determine if there were any other options to reprogram the funding for
other public safety broadband infrastructure purposes. NTIA and
Mississippi committed considerable time to evaluating several
alternative plans that the state created to keep the funding to benefit
the first responders in Mississippi. Unfortunately, the final plan
submitted by Mississippi on December 16, 2013, did not meet the minimum
requirements of the BTOP Middle Mile Infrastructure program and was
missing the level of detail that was necessary for NTIA to approve it.
For example, the state's final plan focused on the new telemedicine
equipment that would be purchased (e.g., vehicular modems, routers,
handheld devices, computers, tablets, GPS tracking capability) and
outlined some new broadband research initiatives and outreach efforts.
Some of the items in the final plan, however, such as non-construction
related vehicles, were unallowable costs within the BTOP program. In
addition, the final plan did not address how this equipment would be
connected to broadband infrastructure. The final plan requested
additional time to work with FirstNet to achieve a successful business
model. But, after 18 months, the state had been unable to reach
agreement with FirstNet, and there was no indication that an agreement
could have been reached if given additional time. Also the state was
unable to identify a viable commercial partner that was willing to
participate with the state and the grant program to expand broadband
infrastructure within Mississippi. Given the uncertainty regarding the
broadband infrastructure and how the equipment would be connected to a
broadband system, NTIA could not approve the final plan. As such,
Mississippi's grant expired and is now in close out.
Question 2. Also in your testimony, you indicated that that ``the
Mississippi program didn't provide broadband coverage.'' Isn't it a
fact that Mississippi's network provided broadband coverage to over 70
percent of the state? Are you aware that MED-COM released a Request for
Proposal for an application that required broadband speeds for
telemedicine and the statewide BTOP broadband network was to be
utilized?
Answer. In its original BTOP application, the State of Mississippi
outlined a compelling case that the State ranked last in the Nation in
broadband connectivity and noted that ``commercial providers face
significant economic challenges in serving the rural areas of the
State.'' In its application, Mississippi proposed a 134-site system
``geographically covering 97 percent of the state and touching all 82
counties. . .'' Unfortunately, the LTE system did not meet the proposed
coverage outlined in the application.
The system was designed using Mississippi's existing Land Mobile
Radio (LMR) infrastructure, which provides about 70 percent statewide
coverage with very spotty wireless service for public safety personnel.
Mississippi recognized the coverage issue and, in June 2012, the state
began discussions with NTIA regarding the need to expand the project by
an additional 130 sites to cover approximately 90 percent of the state.
Unfortunately, Mississippi was unable to fund an expanded project.
NTIA was aware of the MED-COM Request for Proposal (RFP) to
purchase and deploy the telemedicine equipment in 342 ambulances and 90
hospitals across Mississippi. This portion of the BTOP project was
contingent on a functioning LTE broadband system to transmit the data.
As Mississippi acknowledged in its application and during negotiations
with FirstNet, the state did not have viable, wireless commercial
options for public safety in rural areas. Without the LTE
infrastructure, MED-COM had no viable option to connect its ambulances
and hospital equipment to broadband. NTIA understands the importance of
the telemedicine equipment and is allowing Mississippi to keep the
radios it already purchased that are connected to the existing Land
Mobile Radio system.
Question 3. Did NTIA block FirstNet from finalizing an agreement
with Mississippi? Is it accurate to say that NTIA's counsel objected to
an emerging agreement between FirstNet and Mississippi because NTIA
maintained that, despite what FirstNet agreed to in discussions with
Mississippi, FirstNet did not have the authority to inject short terms
funds to help Mississippi offset operational costs until the nationwide
system reached Mississippi?
Answer. NTIA did not block FirstNet from finalizing an agreement
with Mississippi. Both FirstNet and Mississippi acknowledge that they
were unable to reach an agreement on an acceptable spectrum lease
agreement. Under the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
2012, FirstNet does not have the authority to inject short term funds
to states in advance of FirstNet's compliance with the Act's
requirements relating to the state opt-in/opt-out decision-making
process. During negotiations for a spectrum agreement, Mississippi
revealed that it had an operating funding shortfall of $6.6 million in
the first two years of operation. Mississippi expressed to the Federal
Government that it wanted NTIA or FirstNet to cover these operating
expenses. However, neither the grant program nor FirstNet are allowed
to cover such expenses. Under the rules of the BTOP grant program, BTOP
funds are limited to network construction, and therefore cannot be used
for operating expenses.
Question 4. NTIA justified the original suspension of Mississippi's
grant in 2010 as saving taxpayer money by avoiding ``investments that
might have to be replaced if they are incompatible with the ultimate
nationwide architecture of the new public safety broadband network.''
However, one of the fundamental conditions imposed on all 700 MHz
public safety broadband waivers is the commitment of the waiver
recipients to design, develop, and deploy a network that is fully
interoperable with the ultimate nationwide deployment standards.
Furthermore, Mississippi's contract with its vendors required complete
compliance with ``all rules, specifications and functionalities'' that
may change per the FCC or NTIA during the build-out of the nationwide
network.
Given these assurances by the State and the vendors, how exactly is
NTIA saving taxpayer money, especially when in fact the Agency is now
telling Mississippi to spend $1 million to tear down its LTE equipment
already deployed?
Answer. As described above, when Congress passed the Middle Class
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act in 2012, it dramatically changed the
landscape for public safety communications by adopting a nationwide
network approach. As a result, NTIA suspended its seven 700 MHz BTOP
public safety projects to give FirstNet the opportunity to negotiate
spectrum lease agreements with each recipient. Unfortunately,
Mississippi was unable to reach agreement with FirstNet. Without a
lease agreement or a plan to responsibly utilize remaining grant funds
consistent with statutory and programmatic requirements, NTIA could not
justify expenditure of additional taxpayer dollars. As described above,
Mississippi's final proposal included operating expenses, which BTOP
cannot fund, and would not have been used to deploy broadband
infrastructure. Further, the LTE equipment deployed cannot be utilized
in the future by FirstNet without substantial upgrades at significant
additional cost.
Mississippi purchased the equipment almost three and a half years
ago. At the time, the equipment was 4G LTE Release 8/9 and programmed
for use on 5x5 MHz spectrum bandwidth. When FirstNet deploys the
nationwide network, it will be leveraging spectrum frequencies for use
on 10x10 MHz bandwidth and a higher LTE Release, with critical FirstNet
features not defined in Release 8/9, such as priority and preemption
and quality of service. This will make the current equipment obsolete.
Mississippi provided NTIA with the estimate from its vendor that it
would cost approximately $1 million to remove the equipment from the
tower sites and dispose of it properly. All recipients of BTOP funds,
including Mississippi, are obligated under Federal regulations to
decommission and dispose of federally funded grant property in
compliance with its award terms and conditions. The costs associated
with decommissioning and disposing of federally funded assets is an
allowable grant expense.
Question 5. I understand NTIA is pushing for the deployed LTE BTOP
project equipment to be removed at taxpayer expense, and then sold to
developing countries for use in their own broadband networks.
Can you confirm this information and is there an estimate of the
cost for the removal of this equipment as well as the estimated revenue
from the sale of this equipment? Wouldn't taxpayer money been better
spent on preserving this deployed equipment for the benefit of public
safety, the people of Mississippi, and the people of the United States?
Answer. Please see the response to question 4 above. As described
above, the LTE equipment deployed by Mississippi cannot be used by
FirstNet without substantial and costly upgrades. NTIA will work with
BTOP recipients, including Mississippi, to explore options for
disposing of federally funded assets consistent with Department of
Commerce regulations. NTIA is not requiring Mississippi to sell the LTE
equipment to developing countries for use in their own broadband
networks.
Question 6. In his May 2012 letter to Governor's office suspending
the BTOP grant, Assistant Secretary Strickling stated that NTIA would,
``want to keep the grant money in the communities that received the
grants.'' Yet here we are in 2015 and NTIA has yet to make any final
determinations with regard to the existing MED-COM project that
received essential equipment under the BTOP grant to support emergency
medical response agencies, hospitals, and first responders throughout
Mississippi. This equipment allows first responders to transmit life-
saving data to provider hospitals which support vital medical services
in rural Mississippi and greatly enhance the quality of health care for
Mississippi citizens.
In addition, NTIA has yet to make a final determination in regard
to the upgrade of the State's microwave backbone network to a greater
bandwidth to accommodate the broadband network in addition to the
State's existing two-way radio system. The upgrade to the microwave
backbone network is complete and is currently in use by over 20,000
first responders across the State. These first responders rely on the
microwave backbone network for day-to-day radio operations and
additional emergency communication needs including dispatch services,
global positioning services, and automatic vehicle location. If any of
these assets are removed from the State, it would cause a significant
impact on emergency response operations and send a ripple effect across
Mississippi.
When will NTIA provide written assurances to the State that it can
retain the MED-COM equipment and microwave backbone equipment purchased
with BTOP funds as approved by NTIA?
Answer. NTIA has had numerous communications with Mississippi
regarding the microwave backbone equipment and MED-COM radios that were
previously installed under the BTOP grant funds. This equipment was the
non-LTE portion of the BTOP project and was not part of the partial
suspension. NTIA has informed Mississippi that the microwave and radio
equipment can remain in use by the project, provided that Mississippi
continues to use such equipment for the original purposes outlined in
the grant, as required by Federal grants regulations. NTIA will work to
provide whatever additional written assurances and instructions
Mississippi requires regarding the equipment that needs to be disposed
of (LTE-specific equipment) and the equipment that Mississippi can
retain.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Hon. Bruce H. Andrews
Question. I understand in 2010, NTIA awarded 7 grants for wireless
public safety projects. Following passage of the Public Safety Spectrum
Act, NTIA suspended the grants to ensure they were compatible with
FirstNet. Ultimately, two projects were unable to reach agreement with
FirstNet on terms that would allow them to move forward. Could you
please explain for the Committee the circumstances that resulted in
some projects moving forward while others could not?
Answer. As part of the $4 billion Broadband Technology
Opportunities Program (BTOP), NTIA awarded seven grants in September
2010 for communities to deploy 700 MHz wireless broadband networks to
improve communications for fire, police, and other public safety
entities. The initial grants were to the States of New Jersey,
Mississippi, and New Mexico; Adams County, Colorado (ADCOM); Charlotte,
North Carolina; the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications
System Authority (LARICS); and Motorola (in coordination with the San
Francisco Bay Area Regional Interoperability Communications System
Authority (BayRICS)).
When Congress passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act in February 2012 (Act), the landscape for public safety broadband
changed dramatically. NTIA approved these projects when the concept of
public safety broadband was a ``network-of-networks'' model. The Act
adopted the vision of a nationwide public safety broadband network
based on a single, national network architecture, which called into
question the assumptions on which NTIA awarded the grants in 2010. The
Act also required the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
reallocate and grant to the First Responder Network Authority
(FirstNet) spectrum within the 700 MHz frequency band, which was the
same spectrum that the BTOP public safety grantees had proposed using
to operate their wireless networks. In light of the uncertainty over
whether they could retain access to the spectrum needed to operate
their systems, NTIA partially suspended these grants in May 2012.
Suspending performance of these grants also gave FirstNet the chance to
evaluate the extent to which deployment of the networks could inform
and contribute to its mission, including wireless infrastructure that
could be incorporated into the nationwide network established by
Congress.
While several BTOP public safety grantees had made progress in
implementing their projects at the time NTIA partially suspended their
awards, each had significant work left to complete fully operable
broadband networks. For example, while the State of Mississippi had
ordered and received all LTE equipment for the 144 sites it planned to
deploy when NTIA partially suspended its award, it had installed less
than half of that equipment. This limited deployment provided coverage
far short of what was needed to operate the network.
Following the suspension, FirstNet engaged in extensive discussions
with each of the BTOP public safety jurisdictions to enter into
spectrum lease agreements to use the spectrum that the Act had
allocated to FirstNet. After approximately nine months of negotiations,
FirstNet granted spectrum leases to four BTOP grantees--ADCOM, LARICS,
the State of New Jersey, and the State of New Mexico. Once the
agreements were signed, NTIA lifted the partial suspensions, allowing
these projects to move forward. NTIA also granted extensions for
completion of the projects to September 30, 2015, the statutory
deadline for BTOP grantees to draw down money.
FirstNet offered the same spectrum lease agreements to each of the
seven BTOP public safety recipients. Three recipients, however--City of
Charlotte, Motorola, and the State of Mississippi--did not agree on
lease terms with FirstNet and, as a result, did not sign spectrum lease
agreements to enable them to complete their public safety projects as
originally conceived.
Each of these three projects presented unique and complex
circumstances and the lease agreements needed to make sense not only
for the grantees but also for FirstNet's design and deployment of the
nationwide public safety broadband network. In the case of Motorola,
FirstNet had concerns regarding the proposed use of proprietary
functions in the network equipment, which was inconsistent with the
Act. All three grantees had concerns as to the entity responsible for
covering the operational costs of their networks until the FirstNet
network became operational. The State of Mississippi, for example,
wanted assurances that either FirstNet or NTIA would cover its ongoing
operating costs while it built out its network given a state budget
shortfall that reduced the available funds that the Mississippi
Wireless Commission had allocated to operate the network. FirstNet
could not take on this financial responsibility in advance of the state
opt-in decision, and BTOP programmatic requirements precluded NTIA from
allowing BTOP funds to pay for operating expenses.
Motorola chose to terminate its award for convenience. Near the end
of its award period, the State of Mississippi submitted a revised
project plan for NTIA's consideration. This revised plan, however, did
not meet the statutory purposes of BTOP, which requires the deployment
of a network capable of providing broadband service. It also did not
provide sufficient assurances that Mississippi could complete the
project within the time remaining in its grant award period.
Consequently, the State of Mississippi's award expired in December
2013, and the State did not complete the build-out. The City of
Charlotte, however, developed a revised project plan, enabling it to
move forward with an alternative approach to advance public safety
broadband without the use of FirstNet spectrum.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Mark L. Goldstein
Question. I understand that the early builder projects have agreed
to provide FirstNet with project deliverables and that FirstNet keeps
in close contact with the early builder projects. However, you remain
concerned that FirstNet lacks a detailed data-analysis plan to track
the performance and results of these projects. Would you please
elaborate on your concern and why GAO considers it important for
FirstNet to address this?
Answer. Early builder projects have learned important lessons
related to governance, finance, outreach, and network deployment that
could be useful to FirstNet as it develops its plans to establish a
nationwide network. However, we are concerned that FirstNet lacks a
detailed data-analysis plan to track the projects' observations and
lessons learned. Tracking the early builder projects' observations and
lessons against FirstNet technical documentation is necessary to ensure
that the lessons have been addressed and also facilitates transparency
and accountability for FirstNet's decision-making. Even though FirstNet
staff and contractors remain in close contact with the early builder
projects, without a data-analysis plan to track those projects it is
unclear how FirstNet intends to evaluate the projects' observations and
lessons and determine whether or how the lessons are addressed. As a
result, we believe that FirstNet could miss opportunities to leverage
key lessons related to governance, finance, outreach, and network
deployment. Given that the early builder projects are doing, in part,
on a regional and local level what FirstNet must eventually do on a
national level, a complete evaluation plan that includes a detailed
data-analysis plan could play a key role in FirstNet's strategic
planning and program management, providing feedback on both program
design and execution. Furthermore, such a plan could provide FirstNet
officials the opportunity to make informed midcourse changes as they
plan for the public safety network, and help ensure that lessons from
these projects are evaluated in ways that generate reliable information
to inform future program-development decisions.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Susan Swenson
Question 1. Stakeholders have raised concerns that FirstNet has
developed a business plan to use income from secondary spectrum users
to develop, enhance, and upgrade the network, but that FirstNet has not
engaged with the states in the business plan's development, nor do the
states know details about what the plan contains. What is the status of
FirstNet's business plan, and does FirstNet intend to consult with the
states soon?
Answer. FirstNet has engaged in significant outreach and
consultation to help educate public safety stakeholders about the
FirstNet program and to obtain critical information about stakeholder
requirements in preparation of FirstNet's comprehensive network request
for proposal (RFP) and final business planning. FirstNet has reached
out to more than 13,000 public safety and private sector stakeholders
through its outreach efforts in 2015 alone. Throughout 2014 and 2015,
FirstNet has participated in more than 300 outreach events and held
initial consultation meetings with more than 1,300 public safety
representatives in 30 states and territories, with additional
consultations scheduled through December 2015.
The development of a business plan will go through various
iterations as FirstNet noted in its March 2014 public strategic
roadmap. Steps that FirstNet is working on to develop a final approach
to a business plan include, but are not limited to: the release of
public notices that inform FirstNet's interpretation of its enabling
statute;\1\ the release of requests for information (RFIs); state,
tribal, and territory consultations; the release of a special notice
with draft RFP documents; the subsequent final RFP; and the review,
validation, and negotiation of potential offerors' proposals.
Completion of the business plan is contingent upon, in large part, the
completion of these phases. Yet, we are well on our way, having
developed a proposed operating model and proposed operational
architecture that were the subject of the special notice and draft RFP
documents released on April 27, subject to comment from FirstNet's
various stakeholders and market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
(Pub.L. 112-96, H.R. 3630, 126 Stat. 156, enacted February 22,
2012)(Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FirstNet has released three Public Notices requesting input from
the public, including states, on its initial interpretations of its
enabling statute. FirstNet also released 13 RFIs covering a variety of
technical issues, including both core and radio access network (RAN)
development. Through these public notices and RFIs, FirstNet provided
states with an opportunity to provide input that would inform its
business plan. The information gathered at these consultation meetings
will inform FirstNet's final business plan. The responses that are
received from states and other key stakeholders and market participants
to the special notice and draft request for proposal (RFP) documents
will assist FirstNet in the development of a comprehensive network
solution RFP, which in turn will lead to the development of individual
state plans and ultimately a business plan for the nationwide network.
FirstNet also has adopted a variety of tools to consult with the
states. FirstNet sends weekly outreach documents and updates to all 56
State Single Points of Contact (SPOC), and it holds monthly regional
calls with the ten FirstNet regions and quarterly webinars with all
SPOCs to ensure that the states have the most current information about
FirstNet. In April, FirstNet invited all SPOCs to attend an outreach
meeting to discuss topics including the public notices, data collection
and preparation, state plan development, network hardening, the
FirstNet financial sustainability model, tribal engagement, priority
and preemption, governance, and the National Telecommunication and
Information Administration's (NTIA) State and Local Implementation
Grant Program (SLIGP). Feedback from the participants was
overwhelmingly positive and we anticipate holding additional events
involving the state point of contacts. In this context, it is clear
that FirstNet has, in fact, extensively engaged with states in the
development of the business plan and that will continue going forward.
We have made much progress toward the development of a FirstNet
business plan. FirstNet has implemented a vigorous state consultation
process and will continue to consult so that individual state plans may
be developed once FirstNet has selected a partner or partners through
the RFP process.
Question 2. The size of the network's user base will have an impact
on the economics of making the network sustainable. But, as you know,
some are concerned about expanding the definition of ``public safety
users.'' How will FirstNet balance its need to establish a sizeable
user base with expectations that the network will be utilized by, and
prioritized for, public safety professionals?
Answer. FirstNet intends to offer a robust and compelling service
that will fulfill public safety requirements while ensuring that the
network is available to the public safety professionals who need it
through, among other things, locally and centrally administered
priority and preemption capabilities. Priority and preemption would
provide that, when there is a need, the network will prioritize public
safety users over all commercial traffic, and that critical first
responders and other key public safety personnel would be prioritized
over other eligible public safety users of the network. This ability to
prioritize and preempt is a fundamental aspect of the network that
differentiates FirstNet from commercial carriers. Priority and
preemption allow us to get value out of the excess capacity without
having to give up any public safety priority use of the network.
FirstNet also has continued refining its definition of the term public
safety users. FirstNet recently released a third public notice seeking
additional comment on the meaning of the term ``public safety entity''
as used in the Act. Comments to this third public notice are due by
June 4.
Question 3. The National Public Safety Telecommunications Council
(NPSTC) has provided guidance to FirstNet on constructing a network
that is safe, secure, and resilient. In GAO's testimony, it noted that
implementing all of NPSTC's best practices will add significantly to
the cost of building the network. What are your plans for implementing
these recommendations?
Answer. Identifying the differences between a commercial network
and a public safety-grade network is important as FirstNet develops its
comprehensive RFP (that it anticipates releasing by the end of this
year or early 2016). The NPSTC report conveys the key principle that
the network be available to the public safety community at all times.
FirstNet fully agrees with this principle. However, as GAO correctly
observed, implementing all of the NPSTC recommendations would add
significantly to the cost of building the network. FirstNet intends to
balance the need and benefits of hardening the network with the funds
available. Also, we are working with our Public Safety Advisory
Committee (PSAC) to strike the right balance and identify unique system
hardening and resiliency needs and priorities to ensure that the public
safety community receives a robust and secure network.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Susan Swenson
Question 1. In your testimony to the Committee, you indicated that
one of the requirements for the pilot programs was that ``the plan that
the organization presented had to be self-sustainable. So in other
words, they needed to show financial viability. In some of those cases,
it didn't turn out to be that.''
In a complete reversal from the conditions in the original BTOP
grant from NTIA, did FirstNet tell Mississippi it could not derive any
revenue from public-private partnerships to help offset state costs for
operations and maintenance?
Answer. The passage of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act of 2012 (Act), which is the statute that created FirstNet, changed
the assumptions on which NTIA awarded the original Broadband Technology
Opportunities Program (BTOP) public safety grant to Mississippi in
2010. This new congressional mandate for public safety broadband
instructed FirstNet to build and operate a nationwide public safety
broadband network (NPSBN) with a single nationwide architecture,
instead of using a ``network-of-networks'' approach in which individual
states, regions or communities would build stand-alone networks that
would interoperate with each other.
The Act required the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
reallocate and grant to FirstNet the same spectrum that Mississippi
planned to use to operate its public safety broadband network. In light
of the uncertainty over whether Mississippi could retain access to the
spectrum needed to operate its system, NTIA partially suspended the
grant in May 2012. This also gave FirstNet the opportunity to evaluate
Mississippi's project to determine if it could provide value to
FirstNet's deployment of the NPSBN under the new conditions of the Act.
According to information sent to FirstNet from NTIA, in 2012 the
state was in discussions with NTIA to expand its original 134 site
system due to coverage gaps appearing in the original design. In
December 2012, Mississippi acknowledged to FirstNet that it did not
have the funding to expand its project without adopting a public
private partnership (PPP) and guaranteeing the long-term use of
FirstNet's spectrum to a third party. FirstNet could not agree to a PPP
between the state and a third party as part of the negotiations for the
spectrum management lease agreement (SMLA) before FirstNet had the
opportunity to fulfill its statutory obligations to establish an
organization, conduct state consultations, develop a business strategy,
and complete other mandatory activities. Further, granting the
guaranteed long-term use of FirstNet's spectrum by a third-party could
have put at risk FirstNet's ability to deploy a nationwide system as
mandated by Congress.
Question 2. Why shouldn't Mississippi or any state be allowed to
strike public-private partnerships to help offset the significant cost
of public safety networks? Wouldn't such a partnership allow FirstNet
additional resources to deploy a more robust system with truly
nationwide coverage?
Answer. As discussed in the response to the previous question,
FirstNet was not in a position to enter into a spectrum lease agreement
that would have negatively impacted its ability to deploy a NPSBN or
interfere with its other responsibilities under the Act.
Question 3. Did FirstNet expect the State of Mississippi to pick up
all costs from its general revenue fund--or via new user fees--for an
undefined period of time until FirstNet deployed its network in
Mississippi?
Answer. The BTOP grant application process required prospective
grant recipients to demonstrate that their proposed project would be
sustainable beyond the grant period of performance.\2\ In its BTOP
application to NTIA, the State of Mississippi proposed to charge a user
fee to satisfy at least part of the sustainability requirement.
FirstNet, as part of the SMLA negotiations for all projects, did not
advocate for additional or new user fees above those already
contemplated by Mississippi. Rather, the demonstration of
sustainability was required by FirstNet and NTIA for all projects
seeking to negotiate an SMLA with FirstNet and was intended to ensure
that BTOP grantees could continue to operate within the original
parameters of their BTOP awards without requiring the use of additional
FirstNet resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/files/
btop_grant_guidelines_v1_0_july_10.pdf.
Question 4. During the negotiations, would FirstNet commit to
taking control of 100 percent of the already deployed broadband network
as part of the nationwide network?
Answer. Throughout spectrum lease negotiations with each of the
BTOP public safety recipients, FirstNet reiterated that it could not
give any guarantee that any of the systems that were being deployed
using BTOP funds would be incorporated into the NPSBN. First, the Act
mandates that FirstNet conduct an RFP process to select partner(s) to
assist in the deployment of the NPSBN. Second, FirstNet could face
numerous challenges with technology compatibility, potential partner
network configurations and integration costs, and the potential costs
associated with recapitalizing potentially outdated equipment if
FirstNet committed to taking control of preexisting infrastructure. The
Act mandates that any assets incorporated into the NSPBN must pass an
``economically desirable test.'' Due to these challenges, FirstNet
could not guarantee that the already deployed broadband system would
pass such a test.
Question 5. Mississippi will be entering its fourth Hurricane
season on June 1, since the May 12, 2012, NTIA grant suspension without
access to this lifesaving technology due to the fact that NTIA and
FirstNet have yet to develop a plan for deployment and sustainability
of a nationwide public safety broadband network. Mississippi was
willing to continue with its original business plan, as agreed to by
NTIA, but was not afforded the opportunity.
When will FirstNet be deployed in Mississippi? As NTIA has
prevented Mississippi from completing its BTOP broadband public safety
network, which I remind you, was originally funded under President
Obama's stimulus program at considerable taxpayer expense, couldn't one
conclude that the Federal government has jeopardized the safety of
Mississippi's first responders and citizens?
Answer. It is FirstNet's goal to deploy the NPSBN in Mississippi
and throughout the Nation as quickly as possible. Consultation with
states is well underway and FirstNet has held initial consultation
meetings with over half of the states and territories. FirstNet made
further progress on the acquisition process by recently issuing a
special notice and draft RFP documents, which will ultimately lead to a
final RFP and an award(s) being made for the deployment of the network.
FirstNet anticipates releasing a final RFP by the end of this year or
early 2016. These are the steps that, by law, FirstNet must take before
the NPSBN can be deployed.
FirstNet will continue to work with appropriate personnel in
Mississippi to ensure that they have the information they need to
assist the Governor in making the decision regarding whether the State
will decide to deploy its own RAN or choose to make a FirstNet-deployed
RAN available to its public safety entities.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Cory Gardner to
Susan Swenson
Question 1. FirstNet is currently not operationally capable. How
long will it be before FirstNet is available for use across the
country?
Answer. There are a variety of factors that will influence when the
NPSBN will be available for use by public safety. Some of these factors
are within FirstNet's control, while others are not. FirstNet's
enabling statute mandates that the organization conduct a request for
proposal (RFP) or proposals in the development of the NPSBN. FirstNet
is also mandated to conduct state consultation with all 56 states and
territories in the development of these RFPs and develop individual
state plans for governor consideration before deployment can take
place. FirstNet has begun the formal process of state consultation and
has released a special notice with draft RFP documents, which will be
followed by industry days throughout the summer and fall. These two
parallel and cross-cutting efforts are FirstNet's prime focus during
the next year as it moves towards deploying the network on a nationwide
scale as quickly as possible.
Question 2. Adams County, Colorado was a recipient of a BTOP grant
from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--sometimes referred to
as the stimulus. It has created a network that is up and live and has
met the standards set forth by the grant. My questions are as follows:
If interoperability is not an issue--because Adams has met
all the international standards that are required and will
commit to integrating their network into the future nationwide
network--why is it that the state cannot build outside of Adams
County to expand its network?
What specific part of the law prevents FirstNet from
allowing Adams County to do this?
Are you asking Adams County to wait until they receive a
state plan?
If so, when will that be?
Answer. The Act that created FirstNet changed the vision for public
safety broadband from a ``network-of-networks'' approach to a
nationwide public safety broadband network. It is important that
mistakes of the past, where states and jurisdictions built their own
systems in isolation, are not repeated. Breaking the nationwide network
into individual, independent systems would continue the lack of
interoperability among first responders, contrary to the Act, and would
introduce additional integration and equipment recapitalization costs,
which may be prohibitive to the deployment of a nationwide network.
FirstNet negotiated SMLAs with each of the BTOP public safety
recipients in recognition of Congress' vision of a single, nationwide
network. Throughout these negotiations, FirstNet stated that it could
not give any guarantee that any of the systems being deployed using
BTOP funds would be incorporated into the NPSBN.
First, the Act mandates that FirstNet conduct an RFP process to
select partner(s) to assist in the deployment of the NPSBN. Second,
FirstNet would face numerous challenges with technology compatibility,
potential partner network configurations and integration costs, and the
potential costs associated with recapitalizing potentially outdated
equipment if FirstNet committed to taking control of preexisting
infrastructure. The Act mandates that any assets incorporated into the
NSPBN must pass an ``economically desirable test.'' Due to these
challenges, FirstNet could not guarantee that the already deployed
broadband system would pass such a test.
FirstNet also has limited resources, both in terms of funding and
personnel. FirstNet does not have the ability to allocate resources to
expand individual projects while it attempts to deploy a nationwide
network. Such project expansion could significantly increase costs and
put a nationwide deployment at risk, because there is no guarantee that
the assets can be incorporated easily and cost-effectively into the
NPSBN.
To FirstNet's knowledge, ADCOM does not have the funding to expand
its project to more areas of the state without adopting a public
private partnership (PPP) and guaranteeing the long-term use of
FirstNet's spectrum to a third party. FirstNet cannot agree to a PPP
between the state and a third party before it conducts the mandatory
activities outlined in the Act, including state consultation, issuing
competitive RFPs, and developing state plans for governor
consideration. Granting guaranteed long-term use of FirstNet's spectrum
to a third party would negatively impact FirstNet's ability to deploy a
nationwide system, as mandated by Congress. FirstNet is not in a
position to approve a PPP process outside of the nationwide model, due
to the technical and practical challenges that would arise as a result.
The Act spells out the process through which a state plan is
developed and provided to a Governor so that he/she has a choice
whether to participate in the network deployment for the state as
proposed by FirstNet or seek to undertake the responsibility to deploy
the radio access network (RAN) in that state. The state plan has not
been developed at this stage. After consultation with the state and the
completion of the comprehensive RFP, the necessary information will be
available to develop a state plan. Due to these contingences, FirstNet
cannot give a specific date on when a state plan will be ready. Once
the RFP process is complete, the state and FirstNet will work together
to help ensure that the priorities of the state are addressed in the
state plan.
Question 3. Do you think all states must complete the consultation
process before any specific states can move forward with
implementation?
Answer. No. Once FirstNet has completed the RFP process and a state
plan has been developed with the necessary information from the
consultation meetings and the RFP, the plan will be presented to the
governor. This will be done as each state plan is completed and will
not be held up until all state plans have been developed. Once
presented to a governor, the governor will decide whether FirstNet will
build the RAN in the state or whether the state itself will seek to
undertake to build and operate the RAN through the process specified in
the Act. If a state determines to build and operate its own RAN, it
will need to take additional steps before that plan is approved and
implementation can commence.
Question 4. Please provide me with specific dates for the following
major milestones:
Core network deployment
State plans completed
Network implementation
Significant rural coverage
Answer. As discussed in the answer to question 1, FirstNet is
working toward the release of a comprehensive RFP by the end of the
calendar year or early 2016, assuming FirstNet has received the
necessary input from industry and the states/territories. On April 27,
FirstNet released a special notice with draft RFP documents that
contained a timeline for network deployment with the following
milestones for these topics. Appendix C-8 IOC/FOC Target Timeline is a
document in the draft RFP documents that provides details pertaining to
the target Initial Operating Conditions Final Operating Condition (IOC/
FOC) timeline for the FirstNet features and functionalities. This
timeline correlates with the 3GPP standard body release timeline. The
phases listed in this document are the planned deployment phases of the
NPSBN deployment referenced throughout the draft RFP documents. At this
time, given that state consultation informs the RFP and the RFP informs
state plans, FirstNet cannot give specific dates on these topics until
the RFP process is complete.
Question 5. With regard to rural coverage, can you explain to me
how you plan to reach the most remote areas of our state? I don't
believe that the statute requires all areas to be covered in the same
way; it just requires ``substantial rural coverage.''
What does this mean?
Will the speeds be the same in urban areas and rural areas?
Will you commit to covering all areas of Colorado?
Answer. In September 2014, FirstNet released an initial Public
Notice and a request for information (RFI) with a statement of
objectives (SOO) attached. The Public Notice requested responses from
the public on FirstNet's initial interpretation on the definition of
``rural.'' A significant number of the 63 responses to this initial
notice concerned the proposed definition of ``rural.'' FirstNet needs
to define ``rural'' so it can understand what ``substantial rural
coverage milestones'' are because the Act mandates that these
milestones be included as ``part of each phase of deployment of the
network.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ P.L. 112-96, Section 6206(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of consultation and state plan development, each state will
be given the opportunity to identify priorities and provide input
regarding its preferences to a phased state-wide build-out. Consistent
with the Act, state plans will include ``deployment phases'' into which
the state will have significant input, subject to the capabilities of
the contractor(s) selected and the funding available for deployment.
States and territories will inform FirstNet of their priorities in
terms of coverage, capacity, speed in rural areas, and users. As a
practical matter FirstNet will not be able to build out to every part
of the country. The geographical scope of deployment will be heavily
dependent on resources, state priorities, and contractor capabilities.
Question 6. What happens to states that opt out of FirstNet? Will
they be charged any fees? Can you foresee an instance where you do not
accept an opt-out proposal?
Answer. States will be given the choice to either accept the
FirstNet state plan or assume responsibility to deploy and operate
their own Radio Access Network (RAN) provided that the state's
alternative plan meets the criteria established by the Act for approval
by the FCC and NTIA. If a state chooses to assume responsibility for
its own RAN, it will be financially responsible for the capital,
operational, and maintenance expenses, including the cost of
integration with the national core, and all future upgrade expenses,
for the RAN within its state. This is stipulated in the statute and
discussed in the second Public Notice published in March 2015. Under
Section 6302(f) of the Act, any state that chooses to assume
responsibility for its own RAN shall pay user fees associated with use
of the core network.
The Act also outlines the significant roles that the FCC and NTIA
have in the review and approval of the opt-in/opt-out process. Under
the Act, if a state decides to assume responsibility for its own RAN,
there are interoperability demonstrations that must be made in the
state alternative plan and approved by the FCC before a state may
proceed with its RAN build and operation. Additionally, should the FCC
approve a state plan, a state must apply to NTIA to negotiate a lease
for the use of spectrum capacity from FirstNet, and may apply to NTIA
for grant funds for RAN buildout. To be approved for either, NTIA must
determine that the state's alternative plan demonstrates that it has
the technical capabilities to operate, and the funding to support, the
state RAN, the ability to maintain ongoing interoperability with the
nationwide network, and the ability to complete the RAN build within
specified comparable timelines specific to the state. NTIA also will
review the cost-effectiveness of the state plan and whether it
maintains comparable security, coverage, and quality of service to that
of the nationwide network.
Question 7. How has consultation gone with Colorado? Where do the
problems and concerns lie in your mind? Did you provide Colorado with
timelines? Were you able to answer their questions and if not, did you
follow up?
Answer. FirstNet held the initial consultation meeting with
Colorado on January 14, 2015. FirstNet shared information about its
planning and strategies and received constructive feedback from the
Colorado participants. Colorado representatives shared information
about their current usage of broadband, discussed the need for FirstNet
for their public safety agencies, and shared information about users
and coverage priorities in Colorado. Many questions were asked and
answered from both FirstNet and Colorado. It was a fruitful and
successful dialogue. FirstNet provided a high-level sequence of events
surrounding consultation and the ultimate release of a RFP. This
initial consultation meeting served as a formal kickoff for
consultation activities with Colorado. FirstNet has requested that all
states submit data regarding users, coverage priorities, and capacity
needs to FirstNet by September 2015. FirstNet will continue the
consultative dialogue with Colorado through this process and will
schedule subsequent consultation meetings with Colorado in the future.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Susan Swenson
Question 1. What steps will FirstNet take to ensure that you have
access to multiple vendors of public safety grade communications
equipment, infrastructure, and maintenance capacity at the core,
transport/backhaul, and RAN levels of the National Public Safety
Broadband Network (NPBSN) throughout the entire NPBSN build out period?
Question 2. Will FirstNet include specific mandates in the NPBSN
acquisition strategy to ensure that any major prime contractor for the
NPBSN build out will employ a diverse subcontracting plan that will
create continuous competition and ensure no region of the country is
dependent on a single vendor for infrastructure, equipment, and
maintenance?
Question 3. Does FirstNet plan to pre-qualify multiple vendors to
supply equipment, infrastructure, maintenance, professional services,
and other necessary categories of goods and services at the core,
transport/backhaul, and RAN levels of the network?
Question 4. How will FirstNet use competition throughout the multi-
year NPSBN build out process to control costs, reduce risk, encourage
multiple companies to invest in bringing innovation in mission
critical, public safety grade wireless solutions to the market?
Question 5. What metrics will FirstNet use to measure competition
within the NPBSN ``industrial base'' to ensure a strong supplier
network exists throughout the country? Will the FirstNet NPSBN
acquisition strategy include specific metrics and goals for ensuring
multiple, qualified suppliers are represented in the NPBSN industrial
based throughout its build out?
Answer. FirstNet is dedicated to issuing open, transparent, and
competitive Requests For Proposals (RFPs), pursuant to Section
6206(b)(1)(B) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, and
intends to satisfy this requirement by complying with the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
FirstNet is committed to encouraging widespread and diverse vendor
participation in the acquisition process. At this stage in the
acquisition process, FirstNet has not made a decision on the use of
specific metrics and goals regarding competition, any pre-qualification
strategies, or specific diversity requirements for subcontractors. As
the acquisition process progresses, FirstNet will take steps to
leverage competition among multiple vendors, which will provide a more
cost-effective and high-quality deployment model and the greatest value
to public safety.
To further encourage industry competition, FirstNet has issued 13
Requests for Information to date, the latest of which generated 122
responses from the stakeholder community, and intends to issue draft
Request for Proposal (RFP) documents in the coming weeks. This will be
followed by industry days to allow as much participation from as many
potential vendors as possible throughout the acquisition process.
Beginning with the draft RFP documents, and continuing throughout
the procurement process, FirstNet will engage with the vendor community
(as well as other interested stakeholders) to ensure access to well-
qualified vendors for each level of the nationwide network, including
equipment, maintenance of the network, devices, the core, and states'
and territories' radio access network (RAN).
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Susan Swenson
Question 1. Tribal communities are consistently underserved by
broadband providers, which leads to less effective first response, and
hinders emergency efforts. The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act of 2012, which created FirstNet, states that ``. . . proposals
shall include partnerships with existing commercial mobile providers to
utilize cost-effective opportunities to speed deployment in rural
areas.'' and that this should be done with consultation with tribal as
well as rural governments. There are also National Historic
Preservation Act obligations which require consultation with the
Tribes.
I'm proud that in Washington we have been coordinating with Tribal
authorities in the state consultation process. I am interested in what
else has been done by FirstNet or by other states in order to
communicate effectively with tribal government and take into account
their unique technical and budget needs.
How is FirstNet actively engaging with the tribes to meet both the
NHPA and general consultation obligations?
Answer. Engagement with tribes is a vital component of FirstNet's
stakeholder outreach planning, as many tribes have an acute need for
broadband communications. In 2014, FirstNet board member Kevin McGinnis
was appointed to serve as the FirstNet Board tribal liaison and has
traveled throughout the Nation engaging tribal nations in discussions
regarding FirstNet. FirstNet has also hired a full-time head of Tribal
Outreach who has traveled to tribal reservations and villages
throughout the country, including meeting with the Quinault Indian
Nation and the Tulalip Tribes in the State of Washington in October
2014. Further, as part of state and local planning for the network,
FirstNet continues to work with the State Single Points of Contact
(SPOCs) to engage and incorporate tribal stakeholders throughout the
process.
Additionally, FirstNet's Public Safety Advisory Committee (PSAC)
has created the PSAC Tribal Working Group to ensure that unique tribal
issues are being discussed and taken into consideration by the public
safety community. The PSAC Tribal Working Group held its first meeting
this January in close coordination and consultation with the National
Conference of American Indians in Washington, D.C.
To meet National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requirements,
FirstNet has hired a full-time Federal Preservation Officer (FPO) who
has started direct consultation by writing to each federally-recognized
tribe explaining FirstNet's obligations under the NHPA, as part of the
initiation of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)
required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Additionally,
the FPO met with tribal leaders at several tribal conferences: the
National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) annual meeting in Atlanta
this past October; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' sponsored
``Consulting with Tribal Nations Training'' and FEMA's ``Emergency
Management Overview for Tribal Leaders'' in Nashville in January; and
the U.S. Forest Service-sponsored ``To Bridge a Gap'' tribal conference
hosted by the Eastern Shawnee Tribe from March 30-April 1, 2015. The
FPO will also schedule additional meetings and tribal consultations
concerning FirstNet's NHPA obligations over the coming year.
Question 2. Does FirstNet have a plan for serving existing tribal
first responders?
Answer. Once the FirstNet network is operational, existing tribal
first responders will be able to procure FirstNet services in the same
way as non-tribal first responders. Through continued, on-going
engagement with the tribes, FirstNet will be in a better position to
share information on the network so that they can be in the optimal
position to choose whether to ultimately use FirstNet service.
Question 3. Some tribal communities in Washington (Colville,
Jamestown-S'Klallam, Couer D'Alene, Nez Perce) have established their
own telecom companies. Is FirstNet able to partner with these companies
in order to build a first responder network?
Answer. FirstNet's acquisition process will not exclude any
responsible vendor from participating in the process. FirstNet strongly
encourages the vendor community, including tribal telecom companies, to
comment on FirstNet's public notices, provide input into the upcoming
draft RFP documents and attend upcoming industry day events. FirstNet
has not made any decisions on vendors for its comprehensive network
solution at this point in the process.
Question 4. On March 22 of this past year, my state experienced a
major natural disaster: a landslide just east of the town of Oso. The
landslide covered a square mile, destroyed almost fifty (50) homes, and
killed over forty (40) people.
A report (SR 530 Landslide Commission Report) presented to the
Governor of Washington found that there were significant gaps in
emergency response, and technical deficiencies that inhibited rescue
efforts.
FirstNet is important to my state and to all of us that value the
ability of our first responders to move efficiently and with full
information during disasters. That is only possible with reliable
communications systems that do not fail because of floods, landslides
earthquakes, tsunamis, fire, hurricanes etc.
FirstNet was authorized in 2012 to provide the kind of interagency
communication and cooperation that was lacking in the response to the
Oso Landslide. It's been three years since the agency was founded. I
appreciate that my state is one of the early promoters of the FirstNet
network, but when can we expect to start seeing functionality in some
of these systems and is there anything we can do in Congress to support
the process?
Answer. Congress mandated that FirstNet ensure that a nationwide
network is built, operated, and maintained in a manner that takes into
consideration the unique aspects of every state and territory. To do
this, the Act requires FirstNet to consult with all 56 states and
territories to understand how public safety's requirements in
Washington will differ from public safety's requirements in other
states. These consultations are currently taking place, and we intend
to complete the initial consultation phase for network planning by the
end of 2015. At the same time, FirstNet is moving forward as
efficiently as possible with its acquisition process to ensure finding
the partner(s) necessary to make this a successful network. FirstNet
intends to issue draft RFP documents in the coming weeks, which will be
followed by industry days throughout the summer and fall, leading up to
a final RFP by the end of the calendar year or early 2016 if we have
received the necessary input from industry and the states/territories.
These two parallel and cross-cutting efforts are FirstNet's prime focus
during the next year as its moves as quickly as possible to start
deploying the network on a nationwide scale. Congress' continued
support of FirstNet's mission and dedication to public safety is a
necessity over the coming year as it continues to work towards the
first dedicated network for public safety.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Cory Booker to
Susan Swenson
Question 1. New Jersey is using FirstNet spectrum for a public
safety broadband project that explores the deployment of mobile systems
during emergencies. I expect this project to greatly contribute to the
manner in which our emergency response networks deal with
communications system failures. In addition, because the units are
mobile, they can be transported to nearby states during times of
crisis. What has FirstNet learned from the New Jersey project? How does
FirstNet envision the use of deployable assets in a future network?
Answer. FirstNet and the State of New Jersey, a Broadband
Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) grant recipient, entered into a
Spectrum Manager Lease Agreement (SMLA) under the condition that
lessons learned in this federally-funded project be reported to
FirstNet in a way that assists in shaping FirstNet's plan,
implementation, and overall perspective of the nationwide public safety
broadband network (NPSBN). In addition to New Jersey, FirstNet has
entered into SMLAs with three other public safety BTOP projects, and a
non-BTOP project in Harris County, Texas that is funded through another
Federal grant program. The SMLAs for each of these projects, similar to
New Jersey, include Key Learning Conditions (KLCs) that provide
FirstNet a unique perspective and important lessons on how to better
implement the network. Accordingly, members of the FirstNet technical
offices are working with each of the projects to gather information and
to assist in the successful completion of these systems.
New Jersey plans to implement deployable networks utilizing Cells
on Wheels (COWs) and Systems on Wheels (SOWs). The deployable networks
will be capable of delivering data either to boost existing
communications or provide communications where existing nodes have been
compromised. The State will include three ``Proof of Concept''
implementations: the Route 21 Corridor, Camden in southern New Jersey,
and Atlantic City on the Jersey Shore. New Jersey also will keep 10
deployable systems positioned throughout the State in ready standby
mode to provide service in the event of emergencies or special events
in the State or surrounding region (NY, PA).
The three KLCs are: (1) Demonstration and documentation of the use
and capabilities of rapidly deployable assets; (2) Conduct emergency
management exercise and training activities utilizing assets and
provide detailed lessons learned to FirstNet; and (3) Document best
practices Network Operations Center (NOC) notification approach
including trouble ticketing, prioritization, reporting and close-out.
The vendors have been selected, and the design/development meetings
are in progress with State agencies. FirstNet will continue to work
with New Jersey to learn lessons that it can apply to planning the
nationwide network. It is too early in FirstNet's acquisition process
to paint a full picture of how such solutions will be used in the
future network.
Question 2. It is my understanding that the State and Local
Implementation Grant Program (SLIGP) was setup to establish funds for
states to utilize during the consultation and planning process with
FirstNet. Initially, those funds would be used for the capture of data
on state and local infrastructure for planning purposes, but FirstNet
and NTIA have decided against that. Has this indeed changed and why?
How do you envision states using their infrastructure in the future?
Answer. The success of FirstNet and the Nationwide Public Safety
Broadband Network (NPBSN) will depend on our ability to deliver the
most robust service to as many public safety users as possible at an
affordable cost, all while ensuring that the NPSBN can be self-
sustaining. FirstNet's approach to network design and deployment aims
to take advantage of economies of scale in the marketplace.
FirstNet believes that leveraging existing investments in
commercial infrastructure (as mandated by the Middle Class Tax Relief
and Job Creation Act (Act) to the extent economically desirable)--such
as towers currently supporting LTE deployments--may enable FirstNet to
drive down costs and, as a result, keep service fees lower for public
safety subscribers and speed deployment of the network.
Through outreach and consultation with federal, state, local, and
tribal entities, FirstNet recognizes that publicly-owned assets could
potentially support both network deployment and long-term operations.
FirstNet has identified, however, a number of challenges with
leveraging public assets that could negatively impact the objectives to
minimize costs and speed the deployment of the network, through input
from our consultation efforts, market research, and lessons learned
from the five early builder projects.
These findings suggest that leveraging publicly-owned assets as a
foundation to building out a nationwide network is not a feasible or
practical approach. For example, entering into memoranda of
understanding (MOUs) with individual agencies throughout a State for
the use of assets can be complex, time consuming, and costly to
negotiate. Additionally, leveraging public infrastructure and leasing
excess capacity for Band 14 to commercial entities, which is critical
to FirstNet sustainability, may compound the challenges with using
public assets. For instance, certain limitations or restrictions on
public-private partnerships exist in some States--a topic currently
being studied by the Association of Public-Safety Communication
Officials (APCO). In regard to competitive procurement issues, if
FirstNet were to provide compensation for the use of any public asset,
the procurement must be done using an open and competitive process,
which would further delay the network deployment schedule.
At this time, based on these observations and our desire to speed
deployment and keep costs down, FirstNet does not consider the
collection of statewide asset data to be the best approach nor an
efficient use of limited State resources and SLIGP funds.
Instead, FirstNet is focusing states' data collection activities on
maximizing the collection of stakeholder input into the planning
process, such as coverage and capacity needs and user information.
These inputs will help shape the FirstNet NPSBN acquisition and
ultimately the State Plans that are delivered to each and every
Governor.
FirstNet's acquisition approach does not prevent federal, state,
tribal, or local assets from being considered. Rather, FirstNet would
rely on the market to determine the most cost effective, efficient and
ready to deploy solutions.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Hon. Todd J. Zinser
Question. On March 22 of this past year, my state experienced a
major natural disaster: a landslide just east of the town of Oso. The
landslide covered a square mile, destroyed almost fifty (50) homes, and
killed over forty (40) people.
A report (SR 530 Landslide Commission Report) presented to the
Governor of Washington found that there were significant gaps in
emergency response, and technical deficiencies that inhibited rescue
efforts.
FirstNet is important to my state and to all of us that value the
ability of our first responders to move efficiently and with full
information during disasters. That is only possible with reliable
communications systems that do not fail because of floods, landslides
earthquakes, tsunamis, fire, hurricanes etc.
FirstNet was authorized in 2012 to provide the kind of interagency
communication and cooperation that was lacking in the response to the
Oso Landslide. It's been three years since the agency was founded. I
appreciate that my state is one of the early promotors of the FirstNet
network, but when can we expect to start seeing functionality in some
of these systems and is there anything we can do in Congress to support
the process?
Answer. We believe this question is best answered by FirstNet since
it involves implementing the network and system verses our role of
oversight.
[all]