Communications Daily is a service of Warren Communications News.

Timing of Award to Build FirstNet Said Unclear as Court Hears Oral Argument

The timing of the federal government's award of a contract to build FirstNet remains unclear, as Rivada Mercury had its day in court Friday, said public safety consultant Andrew Seybold in an email blast. Judge Elaine Kaplan of the U.S.…

Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article

Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!

Court of Federal Claims heard argument in the case Friday. Rivada claims its proposal was wrongly excluded from the procurement’s "competitive range." Filings in the case were sealed by the court (see 1702210062) and the arguments were closed to the public, a court official said. If the federal government wins, “it is possible an award could be made soon after the verdict is announced,” Seybold said. “However, if Rivada indicates it might take the matter to the next level of the justice system, the feds may feel they have to, once again, wait for that to play out. It is my belief that if Rivada pursues the next legal steps, the outcome, regardless of who wins, will be dismal for Rivada.” If Rivada wins, “there will be another delay while those reviewing the contract for the federal government will have to consider Rivada’s [request for proposals] response and weigh the response against what is believed to be the only other RFP that has been moved to the final stage,” Seybold said. “After that is completed, there should be an award soon after and, hopefully, the losing entity will respect the final outcome and not cause any more delays to the process.” AT&T is seen by most as the likely choice to build FirstNet and the only company still in the running if the Mercury challenge fails (see 1702020056). Kaplan denied a request by Warren Communications News that the arguments in the case (1:16-cv-01559) be opened to the public. Kaplan said in an order it would not be “practicable” to open only parts of the arguments where proprietary information isn’t discussed.