Wholesale: Products & Services

Open Product/Process CR PC112202-1 Detail

Description Of Change

-Qwest does not consistently apply the Held Order process for Non-Designed orders which results in:

-IMA then does not reflect the correct status of the LSR

-CLECs are unaware of subsequent orders issued to their LSR by Qwest

-CLEC notification does not necessarily occur prior to Due Date

-What is the appropriate timing and notification process back to CLECs to make provisioning decisions; Input is needed from CLECs as to

-Which TN(s) does the CLEC want to move forward with

-Different decision criteria in handling conversion activity versus end-user moves

-CLEC input vs. end-user input when Qwest Tech is on-site

Qwest and the CLEC community will work together to resolve the gaps and modify the existing Held Order Processes when Qwest does not have facilities.

Expected Deliverable

Updated Held Order Process for Designed and Non-Designed when Qwest does not have Facilities

Project Meetings

06/18/03 June CMP Meeting Cindy Macy – Qwest advised the comment cycle for this CR ended May 9, and implemented June 8. The CLECs would like to leave this CR open one more month.

05/21/03 May CMP Meeting Cindy Macy – Qwest reported this PCAT will be published this week as a Level 3 Notification. This CR will move to CLEC Test Status.

4/16/03 April CMP Meeting PC112202-1: Held Order Processes when Qwest does not have Facilities Barb Carlson – Qwest reported the PCAT is under internal review and will be released for CLEC review by the end of the month. This CR will stay in Development status.

3/19/03 March CMP Meeting Barb Carlson – Qwest reviewed the process that was developed by Qwest and the CLEC Community. Mitch Menendez – ATT asked some clarifying questions about the process. Mitch asked if the C order was created by Qwest, and if the CLEC has to submit another LSR or sup. Barb advised Qwest creates the C order and the CLEC does not have to submit another LSR or sup. Sheila US Link asked if Qwest sends the new C order number and Barb advised Qwest sends a new FOC, PSON, jep and order number. This CR will stay in Development status.

2/19/03 February CMP Meeting

Barbara Carlson–Qwest reported we are still working internally on our recommendation. The CLEC Community will determine which option they prefer and share that with Qwest during the meeting scheduled for February 28, 2003. Bonnie Johnson–Eschelon stated the purpose of the meeting on the 28th is for the CLECs to be prepared to provide which option they would like implemented. Cindy Macy–Qwest shared that only Eschelon responded with a preferred meeting time so hopefully the other CLECs will be able to attend the meeting and provide their preferences. Sharon–ATT advised Carl from ATT will attend. Liz–World Comm advised they are planning on attending.

CLEC Meeting Minutes for Qwest Initiated CR PC112202-1 Held Order Process when Qwest does not have Facilities February 3, 2003 12:00 – 1:00 MDT

In attendance: Valerie Estorga – Qwest Denny Graham – Qwest Monica Avila – Var Tech Terri Kilker – Qwest Lori Langston – Qwest Sharon Van Meter – ATT Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Vivian Vigil – Qwest Dave Hahn – Qwest Kim Issacs – Eschelon Russ Urevig – Qwest Mallory Paxton – Qwest Barbara Carlson – Qwest Stephanie Prull – McLeod Carla Pardee – ATT

The team got together to review the Option C details that the CLEC Community provided to Qwest. In addition the team reviewed the Option A/B flow charts.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon discussed Option C. Bonnie asked if Qwest would incorporate some of Option C key points into Option A or B. Qwest advised they would see if this is possible. Key points regarding Option C include: *CLECs request to have two processes. One for held order conditions found before due date and one for held order conditions found on due date. * CLECs want to be able to prioritize lines to be installed on held order conditions found before due date. * CLECs wanted to know if Qwest could quantify how many held order conditions are determined before the due date? Mallory-Qwest replied that we do not track this data today. Qwest’s position is that we try to determine if there are facilities available or not as early in the process as possible. As soon as Qwest determines there are no facilities the order is jeopardized and the CLEC is advised via the jep process.

Russ – Qwest explained what may be missing is the reason why the order is jeopardy condition. This information may be helpful for the CLECs and help them prioritize the lines to install or split off the LSR or cancel, etc.

Bonnie-Eschelon advised if we find out the order is held before the due date the CLECs could prioritize the lines, if the order is held on/after the due date the CLECs understand that Qwest should decide and install the lines that are available.

Barbara – Qwest reviewed Option A. Bonnie – Eschelon clarified a Service Order completion notice would happen when one or more lines were completed, but a LSR completion would only occur when all lines were completed. Russ- Qwest confirmed that when any portion of the LSR has a complete status it can no longer be supp’d.

Barbara-Qwest reviewed Option B. Bonnie-Eschelon asked if CLEC sups LSR and splits the orders what due date would the CLEC get? Mallory-Qwest advised what should happen is Qwest should create a second LSR with the same DDD (desired due date). The actual due date would be based on available facilities. Qwest would take a hit on missed facilities. The CLEC may have to escalate on this situation as the center would probably assign the Standard Interval due date as they wouldn’t know the actual circumstances.

Russ – Qwest asked CLECs what time frame before we cancel / archive LSR should we use if facilities are held? Macy – Qwest asked if 30 days was the time frame for other processes. Qwest advised we would like to cancel and archive the LSR after 30 days held. The CLEC would issue a 2nd LSR for the remaining lines after 30 days instead of leaving the LSR that can’t be sup’d out there indefinitely.

Russ-Qwest stressed the original issue that this CR is addressing is regarding Completion Notification in IMA and providing a way for the CLECs to know what lines completed and what lines didn’t. Both Option A and B address this issue. The other changes extend beyond the main issue as the team is trying to improve the process.

Current condition: When the N order is completed and C order is not associated to the LSR the LSR Completion Notice happens automatically and in error.

With Option A: When the N order is completed and the C order is associated to the LSR the Order Completion occurs and CLEC receives a 2nd FOC/PSON for the order that is split off. The LSR Completion Notice will not show complete.

With Option B: The order/LSR do not complete so there is not a LSR or Order Completion Notice created.

Next Steps: * The CLEC Community will go back to their company and determine their preference between Option A/B. * Qwest will review additional comments from this working session and update flow charts if appropriate * Qwest will schedule another working session for CLEC Community so they can share their preferences with Qwest and further discussion can take place * Qwest will make recommendation

01/15/03 CMP Monthly Meeting: Barb Carlson with Qwest gave an update on this CR and said that on 1/7/03 Qwestheld a discussion meeting with CLECs about the process, gaps and options. Cindy Macy will schedule another meeting with CLECs before the 2/19/03 CMP Meeting. Bonnie Johnson said that the CLECs were encouraged to provide input, and she will email this input, option C, to Linda Sanchez-Steinke, ljsanch@qwest.com. This CR will remain in Development status.

CLEC Meeting Minutes for Qwest Initiated CR PC112202-1 Held Order Processes when Qwest does not have Facilities January 7, 2003 8:30 – 9:30 a.m. MDT

In Attendance: Mallory Paxton Qwest Barbara Carlson Qwest Wendy Northcutt McLeod Mona Fielder McLeod Adam Schug McLeod Russ Urevig Qwest Beth Foster Qwest Carla Pardee Qwest Lori Mendoza Allegiance Sheila Hoffman Covad Bonnie Johnson Eschelon Vivian Vigil Qwest Jennifer Fischer Qwest John Beard Covad Kim Issacs Eschelon Denny Graham Qwest

This meeting was held to discuss and review the current process and notes from the December 3, 2002 meeting. The team wanted to gather input from additional CLECs and clarify the gaps and possible solutions.

Russ Urevig – Qwest reviewed Option A and Option B. These options were discussed at a detail level and also summarized by key differences.

Key Differences are: Option A: Allows due date to stay in tact for lines that Qwest can install Qwest determines what lines to install Qwest handles the supp in most cases LSR would stay open in most cases and new order would be issued for held lines (split the LSR) *this causes a problem per Jill as LSRs traditionally have one DD* New FOC and PSON would be generated for the new order

Option B: CLEC would have control over which lines completed Installation of all lines would be stopped until we received direction to proceed from CLEC CLEC would supp the LSR to advise which lines to complete New FOC and PSON would be generated for the new order

Specific questions and discussions are: Mona – McLeod advised they use option B today except Qwest handles the supp. Vivian – Qwest advised we handle the supp if facilities are not available before the DD, but not on the DD.

Vivian – Qwest advised for Option A Qwest would generally convert the TNs on the order in sequence as they are listed on the order. Mallory – Qwest advised if the correct telephone numbers are not converted this can be escalated and depending on the circumstances we can perform a number change.

Bonnie – Eschelon advised in the case of a conversion the CLEC needs to advise Qwest and it would be ALL or Nothing on the lines. Qwest can not split the order on conversions.

Bonnie - Eschelon advised they prefer Option B

Discussion occurred around what products were included in this CR. Qwest replied it was Non Design, Resale/UNE P / ISDN, trunks that are not UBL, non-Private Line Line activity.

Russ – Qwest advised volumes of held orders are low, but the impact to CLEC is high when Billing does not occur correctly.

Cindy – Qwest asked about Jill's concerns: 1. Traditionally, LSRs have only one due date. Option A will require a manual override on the FOC and this will cause a miss match between what is shown on the FOC and the service order. How will we handle this? Russ – Qwest advised we would have to complete the LSR and move the held lines to another LSR

2. What if the LSR goes into a CNR condition later for those orders once they have been released from a delayed order status. How will they supp the LSR to show the newly requested due date? Vivian – Qwest replies we would have to take a verbal approval and perform a manual work around The team agreed there are individual case situations that would need to be handled uniquely. In those cases the LSR would not stay open. We would complete the LSR and issue a new one for the held lines.

Next Steps: The team agreed the next steps would be for Qwest to fine tune the process and document it as a flow or multiple scenarios. Qwest will schedule internal sessions to fine-tune and document the process. Qwest will them schedule another CLEC working session to share the process and obtain additional input. After that the PCAT would be updated and follow the normal review cycle.

12/18/02 CMP Monthly Meeting: Qwest Urevig explained a meeting was held with the CLEC community to review two options. Both options were determined to have areas that still didn’t meet everyone’s needs. Qwest requested additional CLECs participate in the next meeting to help develop the solution. Two meeting times have been proposed via a Notification. The selected meeting will be scheduled and the team will continue brainstorming ways to improve this process. This CR will move to Presented status.

Meeting Minutes -CLEC Meeting on Qwest Initiated CR PC112202-1 Held Order Processes when Qwest does not have Facilities December 3, 2002, 2:00 – 3:30 p.m. MDT

In Attendance: Mallory Paxton –Qwest Bonnie Johnson – Eschelon Russ Urevig – Qwest Kim Isaac – Eschelon Barb Carlson – Qwest Denny Graham - Qwest Vivian Vigil – Qwest Wayne Hart – Idaho PUC Terry Kilker – Qwest LeiLani Hines – World Comm Cindy Macy – Qwest Phyliss Sunnins - Qwest Susan Lorence – Qwest

The team came together to continue to work on issues and gaps identified with the Held Order Process. The previous meeting was reviewed. Susan Lorence advised a CR was issued and Cindy Macy – CRPM, will manage this CR. This project will now be managed using the CMP guidelines. This project will be managed as a Level 4 CR, as agreed to during the November CMP meeting. This CR will be presented at the December CMP meeting. This meeting can be considered as a Clarification meeting.

The current process was reviewed. Barb Carlson advised the orders today are split ‘on site’ by the tech. A new order is generated for the lines that go held. The customer doesn’t always get notified of this and billing can happen in error.

Qwest and the CLECs discussed two options and the pros/cons to each option. The issues and gaps were also mapped to the options so we know which option would address each issue. See the below matrix for these details.

The team agreed the discussion today was focused on Non Design, as that is the process that is causing the most issues. The team agreed the Design process should also be reviewed after we have decided upon the Non Design process.

Susan Lorence – Qwest asked if the volumes were high or low for this process and set of issues. Bonnie – Eschelon advised the volume is fairly low but the impact is high when it occurs.

The team agreed this process should be consistent within itself and not allow different processes for different situations, i.e. if the held order condition is found before the tech goes out or if the held condition is determined during provisioning. Another example is new install versus conversion.

Option A – Non Design Pro/Con Continue to keep 1 LSR – split the order into what can be completed and the lines/loops that can’t

Both the original LSR and the outstanding orders would be in Jeopardy status.

Qwest would need to attach the 2nd order to the LSR to prevent the LSR from completing.

Qwest would need to move ahead on the 2nd order ASAP to keep the LSR from completing.

The CLECs would NOT have input into which lines completed

Billing is based on the SOP and IMA completion report

Qwest would complete the lines available, usually in sequence as they are identified on the order. The tech may not completed one voice line and one fax line- lines would probably be completed based on the sequence on the order

Option B – Non Design Pro/Con CLEC will split the LSR into what can/cannot be completed Original modified LSR and related orders would be completed. CLEC would create a new LSR/orders with only the lines that cannot be completed on it which would go into Jeopardy status.

CLEC would have control over which lines Qwest completed

Completions and notifications would be correct and the CLEC would be aware of what lines completed

All lines may go into Jeopardy if CLEC is not able to decide which lines to complete when the tech is on site.

The Jeopardy in this case would be a JEP to the customer if the customer were not able to advise us which lines to complete.

Tech would contact the center to contact the CLEC. The IMPCON would be contacted 1st then the Initiator if the impcon were not available.

Option B may have IMA impacts that we need to investigate. Kim-Eschelon brought up impacts to the Reserve # function in IMA. Numbers are reserved based on the PON. Option B would have a different PON on the 2nd LSR/order and the TNs would be reserved under the 1st LSR/order.

Issue / Gap Which Options addresses this Issue / Gap Qwest does not consistently apply the Held Order process for Non-Design orders which result in the following issues: IMA then does not reflect the correct status of the LSR Option A and B will address this issue. Option A would require Qwest to make sure the LSR does not complete and the 2nd order is associated to the LSR. Option B would ensure the LSR shows the correct status, as the CLEC would issue the 2nd LSR for the held lines. CLECs are unaware of subsequent orders issued to their LSR by Qwest Option A and B will address this issue. Option A would require Qwest to make sure the LSR does not complete and the 2nd order is associated to the LSR. Option B would provide more clarity for the CLECs, as they would be making the decisions of what lines to complete and what lines to issue subsequent orders on. CLEC notification does not necessarily occur prior to Due Date Option A or B would NOT address this issue. Qwest generally does not know before the due date that the order is held. Qwest would know ON the due date. Option B would provide clearer notification as the CLEC would be making the decisions on what to do with the held lines. What is appropriate timing and notification process back to CLECs to make provisioning decisions; Input is needed from CLECs as to the following: Which TNs does the CLEC want to move forward with Option B would address this issue. Option B gives the CLECs control over which TNs to complete and which ones to put on the 2nd LSR/order Option A would NOT address this issue as the technician would decide which lines to complete, unless the end user is there to advise. Different decision criteria in handling conversion activity versus end – user moves Option A would address conversion activity better Option B would address end user moves better CLEC input vs. end user input when Qwest Tech is on site The Technician should really be taking input from the CLEC not the end user. Ultimately we both want to do what the end user requests. Option B would allow for CLEC input as the CLEC would have control over which lines complete Option A (may) allow for end user input if they are on site and advise the technician. Action Item Assign to What form of Notification will CLECs get when the order is split?

Bonnie advised she would think she would get an additional FOC and PSON for the 2nd order. She would expect to get the 1st FOC/PSON on the order, then when it goes held and if we split the order by creating a second order and /or LSR she would expect another FOC/PSON Barbara Carlson Determine IMA impacts to the ‘Reserve TN# function’ – Option B may have IMA impacts that we need to investigate. Kim-Eschelon brought up impacts to the Reserve # function in IMA. Numbers are reserved based on the PON. Option B would have a different PON on the 2nd LSR/order and the TNs would be reserved under the 1st LSR/order. Cindy Macy Determine internal impacts to LSR/SO process for Option A and B- contact Char Mahs to discuss in more detail Barbara Carlson

CenturyLink Response

March 11, 2003

CMP Community

SUBJECT: Qwest’s Change Request Response - CR # PC112202-1 Held Order Processes when Qwest does not have Facilities

The original request of the CR is to provide a way for the CLECs to know what lines completed and what lines did not complete when a Local Service Request (LSR) is submitted for multiple lines/loops and Qwest cannot provision all of the lines/loops due to lack of facilities.

Several meetings were held with the CLEC Community and Qwest between November 2002 and February 2003, to develop an acceptable delayed order process. During the meetings multiple options were developed, presented and discussed.

The option selected by the participants where Qwest will install the lines available on the due date and establish a second order on the same LSR for those lines in a delayed order condition address the CR because: ? It provides a way for the CLECs to know what lines completed and what lines did not complete ? Allows the CLEC to provide partial service to their customer ? Provides parity with Retail ? Enables Qwest to begin working on the facility issues

The option provides three processes when the outside technician is on site to install: 1. If all lines can be provisioned, they are installed and the order and LSR are completed 2. If no lines can be provisioned, the order is placed into the delayed order process 3. If some lines can be provisioned, those that can be are installed. Those that are delayed for facility reasons are split off the original order and placed on a new “C” order and the new “C” order is attached to the LSR. New FOC and PSON notices along with a Jeopardy notice on the new “C” order are sent to the CLEC. The original order is completed and the new “C” order is placed in the delayed order process. The LSR and the new “C” order remain in a jeopardy status.

The next steps are to update the PCAT Ordering and Provisioning section and provide PCAT status at the April CMP meeting.

Sincerely,

Barbara Carlson SR Process Analyst Wholesale Service Delivery

- 12/18/02 Initial Response: Held meeting on 12/3/02 with CLEC community to discuss the issues identified during previous working sessions. Qwest shared two options which would address the issues identified. The team discussed the pros/cons of each option. Agreement was reached that meeting minutes would be produced, the CR would be presented at the December CMP meeting and additional working sessions would be scheduled to discuss the options in more detail. Documenting or updating the agreed upon process will be the actual response to this CR.