Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR 5582295 Detail

Description Of Change

Project Meetings

Subject: CR # 5582295 Update Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 09:15:41 -0600 From: "Todd Mead" Organization: Qwest Communications International, Inc. To: Terry Bahner

Terry, Please see below in response to your question about PCAT update:

"The LEFV fid alone is not necessarily cause for the CLEC to be sent a jeopardy notification. Only if the FOC has been sent to the CLEC would we send a jeopardy notification. And the current process of jeopardy after FOC states that in all conditions where an FOC is sent and Qwest has found a problem with the request, we will follow the jeopardy after FOC process. No matter what, if it has been FOC'd and Qwest finds a problem with the LSR, we will follow the jeopardy after FOC process.

Thanks

Todd

03/06/02 Letter from AT&T offering a counter proposal to the matrix Qwest has presented for CR5582295

1875 Lawrence St. Denver, CO 80202-1847

March 6, 2002

Todd Mead CMP Manager Qwest Communications 1801 California Street Denver, Colorado 80202

RE: CR5582295, SCR092601, & Matrix

Dear Todd:

AT&T still has concerns surrounding the interim manual process of how and when Qwest issues a jeopardy after sending the CLEC a FOC for an LSR. We have two specific concerns. This first is the introduction of the Application Date (APP) as a tool to determine AT&T Broadband’s due date when orders are issued a jeopardy condition. And the second is the subjective use of the term "renegotiated".

AT&T believes Qwest could proactively minimize disruption to the customer if Qwest would maintain the CLEC ordered due date more frequently than is possible with the Qwest proposal.

AT&T proposes the following changes to achieve this objective:

1. Jeopardy Condition identified within 24 hours then original FOC’d due date will be maintained - Identified within 24 hours after LSR submission by CLEC - CLEC notified within 24 hours after LSR submission by CLEC - Jeopardy cleared within 4 business hours

Jeopardy Condition identified within 24 hours then original FOC’d due date will be renegotiated - Jeopardy not cleared within 4 business hours

2. Jeopardy Condition identified more than 24 hours then original FOC’d due date will be maintained - Identified more than 24 hours after LSR submission by CLEC but before the due date - CLEC notified more than 24 hours after LSR submission by CLEC but before the due date - Jeopardy condition is Qwest’s fault and CLEC clears the condition within 4 business hours

Jeopardy Condition identified more than 24 hours then original FOC’d due date will be renegotiated - Jeopardy condition is CLEC’s fault and CLEC clears the condition within 4 business hours - Jeopardy condition is not cleared within 4 business hours

3. Jeopardy condition identified on or after the due date - Qwest will immediately work with CLEC to resolve end user customer impact. No negotiated due date

AT&T would like written rules about the meaning of “renegotiated”. AT&T believes the renegotiated interval should have minimal customer impact and never exceed the standard service interval for LNP.

AT&T believes Qwest has reasonable time to identify all errors during the first 24 hours. If an error is discovered and the error is related to a Qwest CSR, a pending retail order or any error Qwest fails to identify, AT&T believes the FOC’d due date should be maintained. Our proposed changes define and clarify the process. We believe this will reduce misinterpretation of the process and provide a consistent response from Qwest during the escalation process.

AT&T appreciates Qwest extending the courtesy call to a third week. This allowed sufficient time for AT&T to verify the jeopardy was being received via EDI. It also provided sufficient time for AT&T to provide Qwest examples of when the process broke.

Sincerely,

Terry Bahner Supervisor AT&T Local Services Access Management Western Region 303-298-6149

Cc: Tim Boykin Sharon Van Meter Donna Osborne-Miller

02/22/02 Response e-mail from Qwest clarifying AT&T question on jeopardy and DD process for LNP

Subject: Re: CMP 2/20/2002: Action Item & Clarification Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:45:31 -0700 From: "Joan Wells" To: "Bahner, Teresa L (Terry), NCAM" CC: "Jill Martain" , Jill"

02:00 p.m. (MDT) / Friday 08 February 2002

Followup meeting to Investigate top reasons for error condition after FOC

Terry Bahner, AT&T Jonathan Spangler, AT&T Sharon Van Meter, AT&T Donna Osborne-Miller, AT&T Jill Martain, Qwest Joan Wells, Qwest Ric Martin, Qwest Michael Keegan, Qwest Christine Quinn-Struck, Qwest

Jill Martain presented the following historical values : Total LSRs submitted for AT&T in December for LNP was 15,121. Total Non-Fatal errors issued after FOC , 28. Of those 28, 13 were identified on the same day, 7 next day but within 24-hours, 8 after 24-hours.

Joan Wells discussed: The Service Interval Guide for Resale and Interconnection Services The Matrix for resolving Jeopardy Conditions and Effect on the DDD. The Qwest Ordering Screening Process The root cause for PON ZXDNV25275001 TN 303 463-0715 See attached PDF file "CR5582295 Interval Guide & jep matrix" which documents the above.

Joan Wells will revise the Qwest response to reference the discussion outlined in 2.2. The Qwest response will also indicate the desire by Qwest to work with AT&T to minimize changes to the AT&T FOC’d DD.

-

02:00 p.m. (MDT) / Thursday 31 January 2002

Investigate top reasons for error condition after FOC

Terry Bahner, AT&T Jonathan Spangler, AT&T Sharon Van Meter, AT&T Donna Osborne-Miller, AT&T Tim Boykin, AT&T Vernise York, AT&T Cynthia Linenberger, AT&T Ed Longstreet, AT&T Kerri Burke, AT&T Cheryl Moilanen, AT&T Scott Eicher, AT&T Jill Martain, Qwest Joan Wells, Qwest Ric Martin, Qwest Michael Keegan, Qwest Brandi Bentley, AT&T

Jill Martain provided a recap on the progress of CR 5582295 and Systems CR SCR 092601-1 stating we are still moving forward with a February 18 implementation. The process change will discontinue sending a non-fatal error notice after a FOC if an error condition is identified, and will send a jeopardy notice instead. If the error condition is identified within 24-hours, only a jeopardy notice will be sent. If it is after the 24th hour, a courtesy call (for LNP only) will also be made to notify the CLEC of the error condition. Clarification was made it is a courtesy call and the jeopardy notice is the official notification of the jeopardy condition. Jill further explained that if the jeopardy condition was responded to within 4-hours the orders would remain in the system and if no response was received the service orders would be canceled but the LSR would remain in a jeopardy condition for 30-business days. If at the end of 30-business days the LSR is still in a jeopardy status, the LSR would be rejected back to the CLEC..

Jill explained that the error report indentified several types of rejects. AT&T asked if Qwest had an idea of what the numbers were. Jill advised that she did not have time to review the details. AT&T asked for a listing of the areas of the error and the numbers. Jill explained that some problems came about when the order was pending disconnect then the Quality Checkers would notice a retail dissconnect that came through. She also indicated that some problems occur when there is a dfferent address then the one on the LSR.

AT&T asked if Qwest would honor the due date if AT&T issued their Sup. Qwest indicated that it was dependent on the time the Sup came in. Qwest clarified the process advising that when an error condition occurs after an FOC, Qwest will send a Jep notice, not a non-fatal error. The Jep would be sent back the same way the request was received (i.e. EDI, fax, etc.). Qwest explained that the LSR Order will stay in Jep status for 30 days. Qwest will only Jep the order in the first 24 hrs. On the 25th hour, Qwest will send the Jep and place a call. Qwest needs the Sup turnaround within 4 hrs and Qwest will respond in 24 hours after receipt of Sup. Qwest would issue an FOC, which would start the calculation over. AT&T advised that Qwest should still honor the due date if the Sup was issued within the time interval, especially if the Jep was due to a Qwest error. AT&T suggested that we have another meeting to address this question.

Joan Wells discussed the quality check process. A quality check typically takes place within the first day after the FOC. Qwest cannot commit to this timeframe due to potential volume and resource issues.

A question was raised on whether AT&T could have the Due Date. It was clarified that this would be only for LNP. Joan Wells indicated that she would have to go back to the team.

Qwest provided the root cause for the TN example that AT&T provided . The initial reject was due to a wrong address; however, that was corrected by AT&T Broadband. All following actions were the result of a Qwest agent mishandling this order after that FOC was sent. Joan Wells said this person was individually coached.

Action Plan Qwest will review the due date issue and revise its response to CR 5582295 as required. Qwest will pull historical data to identify the percentage of AT&T LSRs that are receiving an error condition after a FOC.. Qwest will set-up another meeting for Friday, February 8, 2002, from 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM. The manual process for all products associated with SCR 092601-1 is scheduled for implementation on 2/18

--

November 6, 2001 AT&T Reply to Final Response dated 10-24-01 Joan Wells Qwest LNP Process Manager

RE: CR Form #5582295

AT&T has stated in previous correspondence to Qwest and at the monthly CMP Product and Process forum the seriousness surrounding Qwest’s process to send a FOC then fatal reject it without notification to the CLECS. AT&T understands Qwest’s current process providing a 4-hour window for response to a non-fatal error notice. However, examples have been shared with Qwest on weekly calls where this process continues to fail. Therefore, AT&T expects Qwest to adhere to its commitment to allow a jeopardy notification after a FOC instead of a non-fatal error after a FOC as submitted under SCR092601-1. This was presented as a walk on at the October 18 Systems CMP meeting by Jill Martain as a candidate for the IMA 10.0 release scheduled for 2002. The CLEC community unanimously agreed to include the LNP product for this CR. Jill Martain concurred.

In regards to AT&T system changes, AT&T anticipated the need to update their IBICS system only after Qwest discounted the use of jeopardy codes on previous calls. When Qwest announced they would pursue using jeopardy codes (Loretta Huff calls August 31, 2001 and September 5th respectively) and informed AT&T that system changes were not required, AT&T did not pursue modifying IBICS since it is currently capable of handling jeopardy codes. AT&T OSS anticipates the upgrade to IMA 10.0 with SCR092601-1 to resolve this issue.

In the interim, AT&T expects Qwest to continue to follow its current 4-hour window process and make every effort to call AT&T Broadband before issuing a fatal reject. AT&T also expects Qwest to socialize this process with all centers directly involved with the LNP process with special emphasis on the Sierra Vista and Phoenix Centers and the duty supervisor in any Qwest Interconnect Center which provisions AT&T Broadband LSRs.

AT&T does not believe this CR has been fully addressed until SCR092601-1 can be implemented or Qwest discontinues its process of fatal rejecting an LSR without CLEC notification.

Sincerely, Terry Bahner AT&T Local Services – LSAM Western Region

CC: Sharon Van Meter Tim Boykin Donna Osborne-Miller Mitch Menezes

September 14, 2001

Lorna Dubose LNP Wholesale Product Manager Qwest Communications 1801 California Street Denver, Colorado 80202

RE: Your letter dated September 5, 2001 regarding change request 5582295 – Cancel after the FOC

Dear Lorna:

Qwest has forwarded two proposals to AT&T. The first was discussed with Loretta Huff from Qwest on Friday, August 31st. The second proposal, Qwest letter sent September 5th, was based on Qwest changing its process and AT&T making changes to IBICS. Ms. Huff, in a conference call, indicated to the CLEC community that Qwest would utilize jeopardy codes on local service requests to alert the CLEC community when an LSR is rejected.

Qwest has taken an action item to internally review which process will be the final resolution to CR 5582295. AT&T has stopped all plans to augment its EDI system based on Ms. Huff’s proposal. AT&T believes the CR has not been sufficiently addressed. Please let me know when Qwest would like to schedule a conference call to discuss the final resolution for CR 5582295.

Sincerely,

Terry Bahner Supervisor Local Services Access Management Western Region

CC: Tim Boykin Sharon Van Meter Mitchell Menezes

Internal Response Clarification Meeting (9/10/01 3:30 p.m.)

Attendees: Joan Wells, Mark Coyne, Jill Martain, Todd Mead, Michael Buck

Mark and Jill explained the context of the Loretta Huff process. Joan provided information regarding Qwest response provided to AT&T. It was determined that the already provided Qwest response was probably accurate and not affected by the Loretta Huff response. However, Joan took an action item to review the Loretta Huff process. Following the review, Joan will update the CR response as necessary.

Action Items:

- Jill Martain to provide Joan Wells with the Loretta Huff process given to the CLECs - Joan Wells to review process and update CR response as necessary (target due date: 9/26/01)

September 7, 2001 2:15 p.m. Attendees: Terry Bahner (AT&T), Donna Osborne-Miller (AT&T), Sharon Van Meter (AT&T), Lorna Dubose (Qwest), Joan Wells (Qwest), Michael Buck (Qwest), Todd Mead (Qwest) Before the Qwest response was presented AT&T indicated that the information contained in the response was contrary to information presented in another meeting held on September 6. Because of this inconsistency, AT&T requested that Qwest clarify the response before AT&T would accept it. Terry Bahner did confirm that the incidence of this situation (i.e. rejection of LSRs after FOC) had been much reduced since installation of IMA 8.0. However, Terry indicated that she was aware of a few situations where an LSR was rejected after FOC. Joan Wells and Lorna Dubose both reiterated that according to guidelines in the PCAT there were some situations in which rejects might occur after an FOC. To rule out system bugs or non-compliance with process Terry will provide examples to Lorna for investigation

Action Items: - Mike Buck (Qwest) to gather additional data from Judy Schultz (9/7) -- completed 9/7/01 - Mike Buck (Qwest) to schedule meeting with Loretta Huff (Qwest), Mark Coyne (Qwest), Joan Wells, and Lorna Dubose (9/10) -- completed 9/10/01 - Qwest to formalize single consistent response to this request (9/12) - Terry Bahner (Qwest) to provide Lorna Dubose (Qwest) examples of rejected requests after FOC (9/14)

Monday, August 27, 2001 1 p.m. Attendees: Terry Bahner (AT&T), Sharon Van Meter (AT&T), Lorna Dubose (Qwest), Michael Buck (Qwest), Todd Mead (Qwest) Terry confirmed that initial indications are that IMA 8.0 fix seems to be working; original problem has occurred only once since IMA 8.0 release. Further testing is still required, but Terry is please with the results. Terry will continue her efforts to confirm/test recent change and report to Lorna as necessary. Terry also provided further information on a second aspect for this CR. Concurrent with the change to IMA, another change was made to AT&T’s IBICS system. The IBICS system change required some coordination with Qwest systems that resulted in the involvement of Cim Chambers (among others). At this point, AT&T recognizes a system change is required in order to receive the final reject from Qwest. AT&T has asked its vendor to supply the patch. The estimated time the patch will be ready is within 30 days. No systems changes have been made at this point in time to recognize a final reject after a FOC. Evaluation will begin once the patch has been installed. Like the changes to IMA 8.0, AT&T needs to evaluate the fix for its efficacy. Terry does not anticipate any further action needed by Qwest to support either the Qwest IMA changes or the AT&T IBICS changes. But until AT&T installs patch and completes confirmation testing Terry would like this CR to remain open. The time frame for observation is dependent on the system patch and Qwest’s newly adopted process to consistently call the Broadband centers prior to the final reject. Allowing AT&T Broadband a four hour window to change or cancel the LSR. Terry also expressed concern that AT&T’s new system, Launch Now, might have the same limitation that resulted in the changes to IBICS. However, Terry agreed that should problems be identified with Launch Now, she would open a new CR to address any Qwest involvement that might be required to support AT&T’s modifications to their system. Action Items: - Terry Bahner (AT&T) to provide Michael Buck with e-mail of Qwest contacts involved with IBICS issue (completed 8/28/2001) - Michael Buck (Qwest) to contact Qwest contacts involved with IBICS issue to confirm no further Qwest involvement needed (completed 8/30/01) - Terry Bahner (AT&T) to provide Lorna with any additional feedback on the results of AT&T confirmation testing for recent IMA changes. Terry to provide confirmation testing results feedback based on when the patch has been installed by AT&T’s vendor. The estimate is 30 days. Terry will provide Qwest a tentative date no later than September 19th CMP if patch has not already been installed. If no issues are identified as part of AT&T confirmation testing, CR to be subsequently closed.

LNP Meeting Notes - 8/13/01

Attendees: Lorna Dubose Matt Rossi Terry Bahner Donna Osborne-Miller

- AT&T getting rejects after FOC - They are not seeing the cancel notification/no phone call – cannot act on 4 hr interval for action - AT&T report that they are still receiving rejects - Terry to get examples of rejected LSRs from the Denver Center (PON numbers) to Lorna and Joan

CenturyLink Response

October 24, 2001 Wholesale Product/Process Ms. Terry Bahner AT&T Communications

This letter is in response to CLEC Change Request Form #5582295, dated June 6, 2001, title of change: Qwest does not cancel LSR after confirming FOC via pending “C’ order. This Change Request pertains to CLEC receipt of an order request cancellation, after having already received a Firm Order Confirmation (FOC). One resolution of this Change Request is specific to LNP Port Out and involved an update to a Qwest internal system. Qwest business process in the IMA 8.0 release was deployed effective August 20th, 2001. A check for pending orders on LNP Port Out requests will now be made, before the FOC is issued. If a pending order exists, the order is placed for manual review.

Additionally, Qwest examined our exception handling processes, including the notifications issued by Qwest in exception situations. The analysis revealed that current Qwest processes sometimes resulted in a non-standard series of notifications, such as an FOC after a reject notice or an FOC after an LSR completion.

To address concerns about exception handling processes, a call was held with a small number of CLEC’s on 8/31/01 to solicit their input on Qwest’s current process. After considering the input that was provided, Qwest is taking the following current actions:

In those cases where an error is discovered after an FOC is sent, Qwest will continue to follow its current process of following the non-fatal reject process. This process was documented in a notice issued on 7/26/01. The process was also documented in IMA EDI 7.0 Disclosure, Addendum #6, released on 8/30/01 and in IMA EDI 8.0 Disclosure, Addendum #1, released on 9/04/01. The current versions of the disclosure documentation states that the CLEC has 2 hours to respond to the non-fatal error notice.

A documentation notice will be sent 9/24/01 indicating that in the situation where an FOC has been sent in error, a 4-hour window will be given for responding to the non-fatal error notice. The EDI Disclosure document will be updated following resolution of the Change Management Process (CMP) Change Request (CR) described below. (Product Specific to LNP, Qwest will allow a 4-hour window for response to a non-fatal error notice, whether or not the FOC has been previously sent.)

Due to CLEC input during the 8/31/01 call requesting a different process be followed, Qwest has opened a CR through the Change Management Process (CMP) for CLEC consideration. The purpose of SCR092601-1 will be to address the process of sending jeopardy notifications instead of following the non-fatal reject process, once the FOC has been sent to the CLEC.

Currently there are internal system limitation’s involving the inability to send jeopardy notification’s in association with Local Number Portability service order requests. This system change is being looked into with completion of the change request SCR092601-1. There is no time frame available for this system change at this time.

Local Number Portability Service Order requests will continue to follow the non-fatal reject process until such time that a system change can be implemented.

Related to this Change Request, AT&T had anticipated the need to update their IBICS system. In response to this perceived need Qwest previously provided systems expertise and answers to questions in support of AT&T planning efforts for intended modifications to their IBICS system. In a status update meeting held on August 27, 2001 AT&T indicated that no further Qwest support was likely to be needed in support of AT&T’s IBICS system modifications. Furthermore, in a letter dated September 14, 2001, AT&T has indicated that all plans to augment its EDI systems have been halted. Should AT&T elect to make IBICS system modifications, Qwest believes that the necessary information has already been provided. The change to Qwest process (via IMA) and the potential change to AT&T’s IBICS system will need to be evaluated to ensure their effectiveness. This confirmation testing effort is the responsibility of AT&T. Qwest understands that AT&T will notify Qwest of any issues that arise during testing of these changes, should they occur. However, it is noted that upon implementation of the new jeopardy process after FOC, that AT&T system changes may no longer be necessary.

It is anticipated that no further Qwest involvement is necessary with regard to this Change Request and that further involvement will center around SCR092601-1.

Sincerely,

Joan Wells Process Manager Local Number Portability

CC: Mark Coyne Loretta Huff Michael Belt Jill Martain Lorna Dubose Margaret Bumgarner Michael Buck Todd Mead