# US 7,610,241 B1 · Method and apparatus for evaluating optimal access providers for long haul communication providers

> Agents: this data is available as JSON from the patentgrep API and MCP server — see https://patentgrep.com/llms.txt

- Number: US 7,610,241 B1
- Document ID: US7610241B1
- Status: Granted
- Kind: B1
- Application number: 11/602,009
- Filed: 2006-11-20
- Granted: 2009-10-27
- Earliest claimed: 2006-11-20
- Assignees: AT&T Corp.
- Inventors: David Belanger; Sam Parker; Sarat Puthenpura; Wenjie Zhao
- Web page: https://patentgrep.com/patent/US7610241B1

## CPC

- G06Q 10/06: Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q 10/10: Office automation; Time management
- G06Q 40/04: Trading; Exchange, e.g. stocks, commodities, derivatives or currency exchange
- G06Q: INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR

## Abstract

A method and an apparatus to automate the process and procedure for long haul service providers to choose the best quote from a pool of quotes or RFP responses as the best supplier in a country or region. The disclosed method and apparatus includes a mathematical framework which determines the characteristics of each supplier option and a method to determine the cost effectiveness of each option. This method and apparatus reduces overhead and improves the evaluation process for choosing optimal access providers for long-haul communication providers.

## Claims

### Claim 1

A method of identifying a best quote from a pool of RFP responses for implementing a business scenario, the method to be performed by a computer system including a relational database and user interfaces, the method comprising the steps of:
gathering data from the RFP responses and existing circuitry, including a plurality of supplier identities s, identities of access circuits n, technologies t and discount levels d associated with each said supplier identity s;
specifying a total cost function C of the business scenario as
C
=
∑
n
,
s
,
i
⁢
⁢
x
⁢
⁢
(
n
,
s
,
t
)
·
(
∑
d
⁢
⁢
(
mrc
⁢
⁢
(
n
,
s
,
t
,
d
)
·
m
+
otc
⁢
⁢
(
n
,
s
,
t
,
d
)
)
·
y
⁢
⁢
(
s
,
d
)
+
(
1
-
cursp
⁢
⁢
(
n
,
s
)
)
·
(
mig
⁢
⁢
(
n
,
s
,
t
)
+
incent
⁢
⁢
(
n
)
)
)
+
∑
n
⁢
⁢
(
1
-
∑
n
,
t
⁢
⁢
opt
⁢
⁢
(
n
,
t
)
·
x
⁢
⁢
(
n
,
s
,
t
)
)
·
c
⁢
⁢
(
n
)
·
m
wherein x(n,s,t) is a binary variable indicating whether a bid by supplier s with technology t is the optimal solution for circuit n; mrc(n,s,t,d) is a bid monthly price for circuit n by supplier s using technology t at discount level d over m months; otc(n,s,t,d) is a one time charge for bid pricing for circuit n by supplier s using technology t at discount level d; y(s,d) is a binary variable indicating whether discount level d is offered by supplier s; cursp(n,s) is a binary variable indicating whether a current supplier for circuit n is supplier s; mig(n,s,t) is a one time migration cost incurred for moving a circuit n to supplier s with technology t; incent(n) is a one time customer incentive for circuit n; opt(n,t) is a technology feasibility indicator for technology t on circuit n and c(n) is a current monthly cost of access circuit n;
specifying bid constraints as mathematical constraint rules that are functions of the gathered data;
linearizing by the computer system the total cost function C by assigning a possible value to the binary variable y(s,d) indicating discount level y for supplier s;
minimizing by the computer system the linearized cost function to find a lowest total cost supplier s at the possible value of the binary variable y(s,d), using a linear programming solver subject to the mathematical constraint rules;
repeating by the computer system the linearizing and minimizing steps using additional values of the binary variable y(s,d), until the total cost C is minimized; and
selecting the best quote based on the minimized total cost C.

### Claim 2 (depends on 1)

The method of claim 1 wherein the bid constraints include bundle group identification, circuit bundle pricing, and volume discount information.

### Claim 3 (depends on 1)

The method of claim 1 further comprising the step of gathering the existing circuit inventory.

### Claim 4 (depends on 3)

The method of claim 3 wherein the existing circuit inventory includes circuit speed, start and end location, and current monthly cost.

### Claim 5 (depends on 3)

The method of claim 3 wherein the existing circuit inventory is compared against the RFP responses using the total cost function C.

### Claim 6 (depends on 1)

The method of claim 1 wherein the bid constraints include the following rule requiring that at most only one bid can be the winning bid for a given circuit:
∑
s
,
t
⁢
⁢
x
⁢
⁢
(
n
,
s
,
t
)
≤
1
⁢
⁢
∀
n
∈
(
1
⁢
⁢
…
⁢
⁢
N
)
.

### Claim 7 (depends on 1)

The method of claim 1 wherein the bid constraints include the following rule requiring that each supplier can be at one and only one discount level corresponding to a given solution set:
∑
d
⁢
⁢
y
⁢
⁢
(
s
,
d
)
=
1
⁢
⁢
∀
s
∈
(
1
⁢
⁢
…
⁢
⁢
S
)
.

### Claim 8 (depends on 1)

The method of claim 1 wherein the bid constraints include the following rules requiring that a volume commitment volcom and a spending commitment mrccom must be satisfied:
∑
n
,
t
⁢
⁢
x
⁢
⁢
(
n
,
s
,
t
)
≥
∑
d
⁢
⁢
volcom
⁢
⁢
(
s
,
d
)
·
y
⁢
⁢
(
s
,
d
)
⁢
⁢
∀
s
∈
(
1
⁢
⁢
…
⁢
⁢
S
)
∑
n
,
t
,
d
⁢
⁢
x
⁢
⁢
(
n
,
s
,
t
)
·
mrc
⁢
⁢
(
n
,
s
,
t
,
d
)
·
y
⁢
⁢
(
s
,
d
)
≥
∑
d
⁢
⁢
mrccom
⁢
⁢
(
s
,
d
)
·
y
⁢
⁢
(
s
,
d
)
⁢
⁢
∀
s
∈
(
1
⁢
⁢
…
⁢
⁢
S
)
.

### Claim 9 (depends on 1)

The method of claim 1 wherein the bid constraints include the following rule requiring that bid bundle grouping constraints g must be respected:
x(n,s,t)·g(n,s,t,j)=z(j)∀n,s,t.

### Claim 10 (depends on 1)

The method of claim 1 wherein the bid constraints include force to win constraints f:
∑
n
,
s
,
t
⁢
⁢
x
⁢
⁢
(
n
,
s
,
t
)
·
(
1
-
f
⁢
⁢
(
n
,
s
)
)
=
0.

### Claim 11 (depends on 1)

The method of claim 1 wherein the bid constraints include the following rule requiring that a total number of access circuits migrated from current suppliers to new suppliers is limited to mignum:
∑
n
,
s
,
t
⁢
⁢
x
⁢
⁢
(
n
,
s
,
t
)
·
(
1
-
cursp
⁢
⁢
(
n
,
s
)
)
≤
mignum
.