5.1.4 Invoicing (Issue No.: Invoicing 3)

The issue here is the number of days after raising a billing dispute that the billed party has to provide the billing party with all information to support its claim. SBC-CA proposes 30 days, and MCIm proposes 90 days. The FAR finds for MCIm. SBC-CA seeks reversal, claiming factual error.

In particular, SBC-CA contends that the 2001 and 2006 ICAs differ on their treatment of billing disputes and the provision of supporting documentation. According to SBC-CA, the FAR's reliance on the rationale for, and number of days in, the 2001 ICA constitutes factual error.

To the contrary, the FAR comments on SBC-CA's contention here, saying:

"This is not entirely accurate. SBC-CA is correct that the time for filing a billing dispute is addressed elsewhere in the ICA (e.g., stake date in § 6.3). SBC-CA is also correct that the 2001 ICA specifically stated that failure to provide the required information and evidence within the required number of days `...shall constitute MCIm's irrevocable and full waiver of its right to dispute the subject charges.' (2001 ICA, § 29.13.4.1.) That language is not in the 2006 ICA. Nonetheless, the 2006 ICA is silent on what happens after 30 or 90 days. It may or may not be that failure to file necessary supporting data constitutes a waiver of further pursuit of the claim. Rather than increase the likelihood of needless conflicts by adopting 30 days, it is more reasonable to continue the 90 days used in the 2001 ICA." (FAR, page 96.)

Thus, we are not convinced there is factual error.

Moreover, the FAR considers more than just the language in the 2001 ICA. For example, the FAR observes that some billing disputes require the query of a large number of records (e.g., reciprocal compensation over several months may require the extraction of millions of call detail records). In such cases, 90 days is reasonable.

Further, in response to SBC-CA's claim that 30 days will benefit both parties by expediting dispute resolution, the FAR correctly concludes that a shorter time has just as much potential for increasing disputes as expediting dispute resolution (e.g., in cases where data is not available in 30 days and an extension is sought by one side but opposed by the other). Both parties state they already do everything reasonably possible to resolve disputes in 30 days, or as little time as possible. Continuing the allowance of 90 days is reasonable given both parties' stated commitment to resolve matters earlier when feasible.

Finally, the FAR finds untrue SBC-CA's contention that giving CLEC's 90 days encourages improper behavior by giving CLECs an incentive to delay payment by disputing changes. Under the ICA, the disputing party must either (a) pay in full and dispute or (b) pay disputed charges to an escrow account. Moreover, interest and late payment charges apply, as appropriate. This provides adequate incentive against capricious billing disputes.

Therefore, we find no factual error, and are convinced for the other reasons stated above to affirm the outcome in the FAR.