U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

97–368 PDF 2015

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 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

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 

(III) 

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 

(1) 

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 costeffective 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 

2 

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 imVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:07 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\97368.TXT JACKIE
3 

portant 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. 

4 

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. 

5 

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 

6 

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. 

7 

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 mateVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:07 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\97368.TXT JACKIE
8 

rial 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. 

9 

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 missioncritical 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 

10 

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. 

11 

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 largescale 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 

12 

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. 

13 

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 commerVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:07 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\97368.TXT JACKIE
14 

cial 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. 

15 

1Pub. L. No. 112–96, § 6204(a), 126 Stat. 156, 208 (2012). 

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. 

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, 

16 

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). 3The 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, § 6208(a)(2)(B), 126 Stat. 156, 216, 208. 4We 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. 5GAO, 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. 6We 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. 7See, 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. 

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. 

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 selffunding entity, and (3) what lessons can be learned from local and regional publicsafety-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 

17 

8We 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. 9We 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. 10Pub. L. No. 112–96, § 6202(b), 126 Stat, 156, 206. 

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). 

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

18 

11The 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, § 6204(b)(2)(B), 126 Stat. 156, 209. 12Pub. L. No. 112–96, § 6205, 126 Stat. 156, 211. 13Pub. L. No. 112–96, § 6206(c)(2)(B), 126 Stat. 156, 214. 14Pub. L. No. 112–96, § 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. 16Specifically, 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 

Figure 1: Key Elements of First Responder Network Authority’s Public 

Safety Network 

aGenerally, ‘‘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. bGenerally, ‘‘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 specVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:07 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\97368.TXT JACKIE

311GAO1.eps
19 

upper 700 MHz band and the D Block. Pub. L. No. 112–96, §§ 6101 and 6201, 126 Stat. 156, 

205 and 206. 17The $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, §§ 6207 and 6208, 126 Stat. 156, 215. 18Requests 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). 19Seven 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. 20Pub. L. No. 112–96, §§ 6204(b) and 6205(a)(1), 126 Stat. 156, 209 and 211. 21FirstNet 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. 

trum 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

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 publicsafety 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. 

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. 

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 

20 

22The 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. 

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

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’’ dissatisVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:07 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\97368.TXT JACKIE
21 

25Twenty-two percent were ‘‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.’’ These percentages do not equal 

100 due to rounding and because one SPOC responded ‘‘do not know.’’ 26We 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. 27Due 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. 28Due to the sensitive information about FirstNet’s procurement and cost estimating activities 

contained in this risk register, FirstNet has not publicly released it. 

fied.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. 

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. 

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 countermeasures.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. 

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. 

22 

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). 

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. 

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. 

23 

30Pub. L. No. 112–96, § 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). 

Table 1.—Selected Cost Estimates for Constructing a Public-Safety Broadband Network 

Source 

Year of 

Estimate a

Commercial 

Partnership 

Coverage 

(Percent of 

Population) Sites 

Cost per Site 

(thousands) 

Up-Front 

Deployment 

Costs 

(Billions) b

Total Costs, First 10 Years (Billions) c

Cyren Call 

Communications 

Corporation 

2007 Yes 99 37,000 No estimate $18 d No estimate 

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 

Office 

2011 Yes 95 45,000 No estimate No estimate $12 

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. aThe 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. cThe total costs include both the up-front deployment costs plus ongoing costs, such as maintenance and operations, over the first 10 

years. dThis 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. eThis 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

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 netVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:07 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\97368.TXT JACKIE
24 

33This interoperable network in Sweden is called the ‘‘Rakel’’ network and is primarily used 

for voice communications. 34Pub. L. No. 112–96, § 6206(b)(2)(A), 126 Stat. 156, 212. 35 NPSTC, Defining Public Safety Grade Systems and Facilities (Littleton, CO: May 22, 2014). 36FirstNet sought input into this matter in its September 2014 RFI. 37 Hallahan and Peha, 2011. 38More 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. 

work 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. 

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. 

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

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: 

• 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 

25 

39Pub. L. No. 112–96, § 6001(26),126 Stat. 156, 204. 40FirstNet proposed some interpretations of these definitions in its September 2014 Public 

Notice. 41One 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. 42Pub. L. No. 112–96, § 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. 

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. 

• 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 

26 

43Mobile 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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

27 

44FirstNet 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. 45GAO–09–45. 

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. 

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. 

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 

28 

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 

29 

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; 

30 

1The FirstNet Strategic Program Roadmap Executive Summary can be accessed at: http:// 

firstnet.gov/content/march-board-directors-meeting. 

• 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: 

• 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; 

31 

• 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: 

32 

2The FirstNet PSAC Human Factors Report, available at: http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/PSAC%20Human%20Factors%20Report-FINAL.pdf. 

• 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

• 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 apVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:07 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\97368.TXT JACKIE
33 

proach, 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 

34 

3The 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. 4 Adams County Communications Center, Inc. 

5State of New Jersey Office of Information Technology. 

6Four 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. 7http://www.firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/Annual%20ReportlFY2014lFINALl3l3l15 

.pdf 8On 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. 

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. 

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

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

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

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. 

35 

ATTACHMENT

FirstNet, U.S. Department of Commerce, FY 2014: Annual Report to Congress 


311RPRT1.eps
36 


311RPRT2.eps
37 


311RPRT3.eps
38 


311RPRT4.eps
39 


311RPRT5.eps
40 


311RPRT6.eps
41 


311RPRT7.eps
42 


311RPRT8.eps
43 


311RPRT9.eps
44 


311RPRT10.eps
45 


311RPRT11.eps
46 


311RPRT12.eps
47 


311RPRT13.eps
48 


311RPRT14.eps
49 


311RPRT15.eps
50 


311RPRT16.eps
51 


311RPRT17.eps
52 


311RPRT18.eps
53 


311RPRT19.eps
54 


311RPRT20.eps
55 


311RPRT21.eps
56 


311RPRT22.eps
57 


311RPRT23.eps
58 


311RPRT24.eps
59 


311RPRT25.eps
60 


311RPRT26.eps
61 


311RPRT27.eps
62 


311RPRT28.eps
63 


311RPRT29.eps
64 


311RPRT30.eps
65 


311RPRT31.eps
66 


311RPRT32.eps
67 


311RPRT33.eps
68 


311RPRT34.eps
69 


311RPRT35.eps
70 


311RPRT36.eps
71 


311RPRT37.eps
72 


311RPRT38.eps
73 


311RPRT39.eps
74 


311RPRT40.eps
75 


311RPRT41.eps
76 


311RPRT42.eps
77 


311RPRT43.eps
78 


311RPRT44.eps
79 

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 

80 

1Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112–96. 

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 chalVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:07 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\97368.TXT JACKIE
81 

2 Id. § 6206(f). 

3 Id. § 6206(g). 

4The 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. 

lenges the Department and FirstNet face in their efforts to ensure implementation 

of a nationwide, interoperable, wireless broadband network for the public safety 

community. 

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

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. 

• 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. 

82 

5Outlays, not expenses, were provided for FY 2012. FirstNet began financial reporting in FY 

2013. The FY 2014 results have not been audited yet. 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. 

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. 

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 procurementrelated 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 adVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:07 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\97368.TXT JACKIE
83 

7See 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. 

dition, the Board member met with the Inspector General in July 2013 to discuss 

his concerns. 

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. 

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. 

84 

8OFPP memorandum, October 27, 2009. ‘‘Increasing Competition and Structuring Contracts 

for the Best Results.’’ 

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. 

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 

85 

9The 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. 

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 

Contracting Bureau 

(and Contract Number) Date Contractor Contract Value (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 end- ing 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. 

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 procVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:07 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\97368.TXT JACKIE
86 

ess 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 longterm 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/preVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:07 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\97368.TXT JACKIE
87 

10KPMG LLP, July 24, 2014. Independent Auditor’s Report to the Secretary of Commerce and 

the FirstNet Board of Directors. 

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. 

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. 

88 

Table 2. Status of First Net’s Initial State and Local Consultation Meetings 

as of March 2, 2015 

Status 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. 

89 

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, 

90 

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. 

91 

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. 

92 

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 

93 

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. 

94 

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. 

95 

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-broadbandnetwork-for-public/articlel8f841654-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. 

96 

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. 

97 

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 selffunding 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 

98 

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. 

99 

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 twentythird 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 

100 

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 

101 

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 

102 

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-ofcontact, 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. 

103 

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 longterm 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 timeframe of getting through our state consultation, issuing the RFP, 

getting the response, and then obviously awarding, you know, to 

104 

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 

105 

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. 

106 

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—— 

107 

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. 

108 

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. 

109 

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. 

110 

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 

111 

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, 

112 

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 orgaVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:07 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\97368.TXT JACKIE
113 

nizations. 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. 

114 

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. 

115 

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. 

116 

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. 

117 

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 

118 

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 

119 

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 

120 

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—— 

121 

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.] 

(123) 

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. 

124 

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 

125 

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 safeVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:07 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\97368.TXT JACKIE
126 

ty 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 

127 

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 

128 

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 

129 

1The 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). 

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. 

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? 

130 

2http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/files/btoplgrantlguidelineslv1l0ljulyl10.pdf. 

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 

131 

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. 

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. 

132 

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 

133 

3P.L. 112–96, Section 6206(b)(3). 

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

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 

134 

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 costeffectiveness 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. 

135 

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, JamestownS’Klallam, Couer D’Alene, Nez Perce) have established their own telecom compaVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:07 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\97368.TXT JACKIE
136 

nies. 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. 

137 

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. 

138 

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. 

Æ 

139 

This page intentionally left blank. 

140 

This page intentionally left blank. 

141 

This page intentionally left blank.