|
State of Florida
|
Public Service Commission
Capital Circle Office Center ● 2540 Shumard
Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850
-M-E-M-O-R-A-N-D-U-M-
|
|
DATE:
|
June 27, 2024
|
|
TO:
|
Office of Commission Clerk (Teitzman)
|
|
FROM:
|
Office of Industry Development and Market
Analysis (Williams, Fogleman)
Office of the General
Counsel (Imig, Farooqi, Harper)
|
|
RE:
|
Docket No. 20240043-TP – Request for
submission of proposals for relay service, beginning in March 2025, for the
deaf, hard of hearing, deaf/blind, or speech impaired, and other
implementation matters in compliance with the Florida Telecommunications
Access System Act of 1991.
|
|
AGENDA:
|
07/09/24 – Regular Agenda – Interested Persons May Participate
|
|
COMMISSIONERS ASSIGNED:
|
All Commissioners
|
|
PREHEARING OFFICER:
|
Fay
|
|
CRITICAL DATES:
|
The current contract expires
February 28, 2025. Significant time is needed to issue the RFP, evaluate
proposals, and to set-up the system.
|
|
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
|
Anticipate the need for sign
language interpreters and assisted listening devices. Please place near the
beginning of the agenda to reduce interpreter costs.
|
|
|
|
|
Case Background
The
existing Florida relay service provider contract expires February 28, 2025. On
March 1, 2024, T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile) provided written notice to the Florida
Public Service Commission (Commission) that it does not intend to extend the
relay provider contract an additional year past the expiration date, as
permitted by the existing contract.
Attachment A to this recommendation
contains a Draft Request for Proposals (RFP) to provide
telecommunications relay service in Florida. If approved, the RFP will be issued
no later than July 16, 2024, with the proposals due by August 19, 2024. The
tentative schedule calls for the Commission to select a provider at the
November 5, 2024 Agenda Conference, and for the provider to begin providing
service on March 1, 2025.
Pursuant to Section 287.057(1)(b) Florida Statutes (F.S.), an agency is
required to issue an RFP when it solicits commodities or contractual services
that meet a certain threshold amount. See
Section 287.017, F.S. In this case, the RFP is necessary in order for the
Commission to offer relay service in compliance with:
·
The Florida Telecommunications Access System Act
(TASA), Chapter 427, Part II, F.S.;
·
The Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, 42 USC §12101 et seq.; and
·
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
regulations on relay service, 47 CFR Part 64.
The RFP mandates many features for relay
service, including 24 hour a day service every day of the year, answering time
and blocking standards, confidentiality conditions, procedures for relaying a
call giving substantial control to the user as to how the call is handled,
Communications Assistant (CA) and provider requirements, and provisions for
complaint resolution and consumer input. In addition, the RFP allows a bidder
to provide unsolicited features as part of its basic relay service for which
additional evaluation points may be awarded.
Pursuant to Chapter 287, F.S., the Commission
must award the contract to the bidder whose proposal is the most advantageous
to the state, taking into account the factors set forth in Section
427.704(3)(a), F.S:
1.
The appropriateness and accessibility of the proposed
telecommunications relay service for the citizens of the state, including
persons with hearing and/or speech loss;
2.
The overall quality of the proposed telecommunications
relay service;
3.
The charges for the proposed telecommunications relay
service;
4.
The ability and qualifications of the bidder to provide
the proposed telecommunications relay service as outlined in the RFP;
5.
Any proposed service enhancements and technological
enhancements which improve service without significantly increasing cost;
6.
Any proposed inclusion of provision of assistance to deaf
persons with special needs to access the basic telecommunications system;
7.
The ability to meet the proposed commencement date for
the Florida Relay Service; and
8.
All other factors listed in the RFP.
Each bidder will be required to submit its proposal
on the basis of a charge per billable minute for a three-year contract with the
option of four one-year extensions. The price proposal must be submitted in a
sealed envelope separate from the technical proposal.
The
RFP also provides for a point system for evaluating the proposals. A weight of
50% will be given to the technical aspect of the proposal and a weight of 50%
will be given to the price aspect of the proposal.
A Bidders’ Conference was held on April 23,
2024. During the Conference, staff conducted a detailed walk-through of the
Draft RFP and allowed participants to ask questions and present suggested
changes. In addition, staff allowed Conference participants and all interested
persons to submit written suggested changes to the Draft RFP for staff’s
consideration. Staff has addressed suggested changes and has presented its
recommended basis for acceptance or denial in Issue One of the recommendation.
The Commission has
authority over TASA pursuant to Part II of Chapter 427, F.S., and issues this
RFP pursuant to Chapter 287, F.S.
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should the Commission issue the RFP for telecommunications
relay service?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Commission should issue the RFP, as set
forth in Attachment A.
Staff Analysis:
The RFP was drafted to describe as specifically as
possible the relay service that should be provided. The RFP includes traditional
telecommunications relay service (TRS) and speech-to-speech (STS) service currently
provided in Florida, and complies with FCC regulations. The RFP does not include
analog captioned telephone service (CTS) that is offered under the current
relay provider contract.
The RFP is substantially similar to the RFP issued by the
Commission on May 11, 2021, with the exception of analog CTS. Based on analysis
by staff, along with comments from Hamilton Relay, Inc. (Hamilton Relay) and
T-Mobile, staff recommends selective revisions to the May 11, 2021 RFP. Staff’s
review of suggested revisions to sections of the 2021 RFP is presented below.
Removal of analog CTS
from the RFP
T-Mobile has requested the removal of analog CTS from the
RFP. In support, T-Mobile cites the continued decline in analog CTS minutes of
use, the absence of an FCC mandate, and the availability of viable
alternatives. T-Mobile noted the number of analog CTS subscribers decreased from
137 to 89 during the twelve month period from April 2023 to March 2024.
Hamilton Relay supports the continuation of analog CTS in
Florida to support traditional analog CTS users. Hamilton Relay presented some
creditable information in support of the continued offering of analog CTS in
Florida. However, based on declining minutes of use, viable alternatives, the
potential impact on competition, along with statutory constraints, staff does
not support Hamilton’s position.
As staff has previously reported to the Commission, analog
CTS minutes of use continue to decline. This is driven in large part by the analog
to digital transition in the telecommunications industry. This transition
presents challenges for users reliant on analog forms of CTS, particularly
those without access to broadband due to demographics or financial constraints.
Historical data from the Commission’s three most recent Relay Reports is
provided below with forecasted minutes of use by T-Mobile for the last two
years:
|
|
Analog CTS Minutes of Use
|
|
July 2020 to June 2021
|
368,337
|
|
July 2021 to June 2022
|
236,044
|
|
July 2022 to June 2023
|
166,908
|
|
July 2023 to June 2024
|
153,345*
|
|
July 2024 to June 2025
|
84,435*
|
* Forecast provided by T-Mobile in associated
FRTI budget dockets.
In response to this transformation, relay programs in
other states are adjusting with reforms ranging from issuing separate contracts
for traditional TRS and analog CTS, to discontinuing analog CTS altogether. Multiple
contracts are not an option in Florida because TASA mandates that a single
statewide relay service provider be awarded the contract. Staff
notes that analog CTS is not a service mandated by the FCC for state relay
program certification. Traditional TRS and STS are the only two mandated
services required by the FCC for state certification.
It appears that issuing an RFP for only traditional TRS
and STS will benefit Florida by providing the best opportunity for competition.
To date, T-Mobile and Hamilton Relay are the only two potential bidders who
have shown interest in submitting a proposal. T-Mobile has indicated to staff
that it is not willing to continue offering analog CTS once the current
contract expires. With T-Mobile ceasing the provision of analog CTS, requiring
that service in Florida would result in a single bid in response to the RFP.
This scenario has the potential to have adverse consequences on the price Florida
Telecommunications Relay, Inc. (FTRI) pays for relay service and subsequently
its relay service provider expense.
Staff acknowledges that issuing an RFP that does not
include analog CTS is a significant change. However, staff is encouraged by the
continued rapid advances in technology and the adoption of these advances by
consumers. One of these advances will be offered by FTRI. It is an alternative to
analog CTS that uses a new Caption Device that
provides benefits to customers that are similar to analog CTS. The XLC8,
when combined with the XLC8GLT Deluxe, offers the benefits of a CA assisted
analog CTS call without the CA. The translation of voice to text is performed by
the XLC8GLT Deluxe device. Other alternatives noted by T-Mobile include: use of
a traditional CapTel phone with traditional relay Voice Carry-Over, Internet Protocol
CTS for those customers who have internet access, and wireless service with
free apps.
If the Commission approves staff’s recommendation to issue
the RFP for traditional TRS and STS only, it will be important for FTRI,
T-Mobile, and the winning bidder to educate consumers and the deaf and hard of
hearing community about the change and alternative service offerings. FTRI’s
continued outreach efforts, and specifically its marketing of the XLC8GLT Deluxe
is important. T-Mobile, with input from staff, has already contacted consumers
informing them that the CapTel service may be ending in the near future.
T-Mobile also provided consumers with a method to learn more about alternative
services.
Staff has deleted references to analog CTS that were
included in the 2021 RFP. Staff recommends issuing the 2024 RFP for traditional
TRS and STS only.
Section A.7. Key
Dates
T-Mobile
recommended extending the Clarifying Questions Submitted in Writing to the
Proposal Review Committee Chairman date to at least two weeks from the date the
RFP is released. Staff’s original schedule required clarifying questions to be
submitted within one week.
Hamilton
Relay did not comment on this section.
Staff supports T-Mobile’s request to extend the due date
to two weeks from the RFP release date.
Section A.34. Liquidated Damages for Failure to Initiate Services on Time or to
Provide
Contracted Services for the Life of the Contract
T-Mobile explained that as the industry has experienced
significant declines in minutes of use, the liquidated damages for service
level performance now far exceed the cost to provide the service. T-Mobile
requests that the RFP reduce the amount of liquidated damages from $5,000 per day
to $250 per day for Meet Answer Time Requirement and Meet Blockage Rate or
Transmission Level Requirement.
Hamilton Relay suggests that due to shrinking relay
usage, the liquidated damages contained in this section are stringent and
increase costs. Hamilton asked that the Commission amend this section by adding
the following language at the end of Section A.34: “Under no circumstance shall
the liquidated damages exceed the revenue generated for the respective day.” Staff
does not oppose this revision.
Staff does not oppose T-Mobile’s request to reduce the
amount. However, staff does not support reducing the amount to $250 per day. In
FTRI’s FY 2024/2025 Commission approved budget, total relay service provider expense
is $921,793. This equates to a daily expense of $2,525. Staff believes $1,000 per
day addresses the impact of declines in minutes of use and the resulting
revenue decline, while providing continued incentive for the provider to
deliver quality service. In addition, adoption of Hamilton Relay’s suggestion
to cap liquidated damages further addresses T-Mobile’s concern.
Staff recommends the amount for liquidated damages for
Meet Answer Time Requirement and Meet Blockage Rate or Transmission Level
Requirement be reduced from $5,000 to $1,000 per day. Staff further recommends
that liquidated damages not exceed the
revenue generated for the respective day.
Section B.43.
Performance Bond
This section requires the provider to furnish an
acceptable performance bond, certified or cashier’s check, or bank money order
equal to the estimated total first year price of the contract.
T-Mobile did not comment on this section.
Hamilton communicated that in light of decreasing minutes
of use, “we respectfully request the Commission consider modifying this
requirement to lower the amount to the estimated total for the first six
months’ price of the contract.”
Staff agrees with Hamilton Relay that minutes of use
continue to decline. FTRI’s relay service provider expense has continued to
decline on an annual basis. Staff agrees that there is flexibility to lower the
bond requirement as minutes and cost continue to decline. Staff supports
Hamilton Relay’s request.
Section D. THE
PRICE PROPOSAL FORMAT
This
section requires that a bid price must be on a flat rate basis per billable minute
for all billable
minutes and not vary
depending upon the volume of traffic.
This section of the RFP has also been revised to reflect the discontinuance of
analog CTS.
T-Mobile
did not comment on this section.
In
its written comments, Hamilton Relay proposed alternate pricing models. In response,
Hamilton Relay submitted several alternative pricing models for consideration
in its written comments which include a per minute rate with a monthly minimum
and a monthly recurring charge with overages. Staff reviewed the alternative
pricing models submitted by Hamilton Relay, but staff believes that the current
flat rate billable minute methodology works well in Florida and should be
retained.
In addition to the changes discussed above, the 2021 RFP has been
edited for internal consistency with those changes. Staff recommends that the
Commission issue the RFP as set forth in Attachment A.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
No. (Imig)
Staff Analysis:
An RFP is issued pursuant to Chapter 287, F.S. Moreover, this RFP
is specific to meet the requirements of Chapter 487, F.S., for TASA services.
Accordingly, this docket should remain open throughout the life of the
contract, and the provider should be selected at a future Commission Agenda
Conference to begin providing service on March 1, 2025.
