[Erate] E Rate Central News for the Week of August 1, 2005

Mon Aug 8 10:49:20 PDT 2005

E-Rate Central News for the Week of August 1, 2005

*	Waves 5-6 Funding for FY 2005
*	Poorly Understood E-Rate Topics: Part 1
*	Contracts: Two Signatures and Two Dates

	The E-Rate Central News for the Week, prepared by E-Rate
Central, is sponsored by the State E-Rate Coordinators' Alliance
("SECA").  Official SLD news is provided in the "Important Notices"
section of the SLD's Web site <http://www.sl.universalservice.org>
(http://www.sl.universalservice.org).  Additional E-rate information and
archived copies of this newsletter are located on the E-Rate Central Web
site <http://www.e-ratecentral.com>  (http://www.e-ratecentral.com).

*	Waves 5-6 Funding for FY 2005

		Wave 5 for FY 2005 was released on Wednesday, July 27,
2005.  The wave was comprised of over 690 Funding Commitment Decision
Letters ("FCDLs") totaling over $145 million.  Wave 6 is scheduled for
release on Wednesday, August 3, 2005.  The wave is estimated to include
$67.5 million for another 600 applicants.

		The two waves bring total FY 2005 funding to $459
million, about 40% below total FY 2004 funding as of this date last
year.

		The SLD continues to review, but is not yet funding,
Internal Connections requests.  Applicants may receive FCDLs on Internal
Connections applications listing the status of their FRN(s) as "As Yet
Unfunded."  Although this is technically not a funding decision on which
applicants can rely, high discount applicants should consider it good
news.  It means that the SLD has completed its review of the FRN(s) and,
assuming Internal Connection funding is subsequently made available at
those applicants' discount levels, the "As Yet Unfunded" FRN(s) will be
approved.

		It is important to note that "As Yet Unfunded" status
does not necessarily mean that the FRN has been approved at the full
requested amount, only that the FRN has been reviewed and has not been
denied.  If, for example, the SLD review found that a portion of a
request was ineligible, funding might ultimately be provided at a
reduced level.  The way to determine if any reduction has been made to
the designated funding is to compare the amount listed as "As Yet
Unfunded" on page one of the FCDL with the total amount of the
discount(s) originally requested for those FRN(s).  If it is less, then
one or more of the FRNs have been reduced.  Further details will not
become available until the final FCDL is issued.

		In addition to the two FY 2005 waves, the SLD is also
scheduled to release Wave 27 for FY 2004 on Tuesday, August 2, 2005.
Only a few applicants in six states are being funded in this wave for a
total of just under $6 million.

*	Poorly Understood E-Rate Topics: Part 1

	Through the first six months of 2005, BearingPoint, the SLD's
contractor, conducted 290 site visits to schools and libraries.  An
updated report on this outreach effort was made to the USAC Board in
July and is summarized on the SLD Web site at
http://www.sl.universalservice.org/sitevisits/july05report.asp.  As a
part of this report, BearingPoint listed thirteen topics which they
found were most frequently misunderstood or ignored by E-rate
applicants.  Several are surprisingly basic.

	This is the first of a two-part series to briefly discuss these
topics.

1.	Applicants are not aware of or have not contacted their State
E-rate Coordinators.
		All states have an E-rate coordinator (and most have two
- one for schools and one for libraries) who serves as a coordinator on
E-rate and SLD matters.  More than half the state coordinators are
active in the State E-Rate Coordinators' Alliance ("SECA") or the E-rate
group of the American Library Association ("ALA").  Many are actively
involved with applicants, providing training and/or answering questions,
but others are not.  Applicants looking for state training, or needing
special assistance beyond that available from the SLD helpline
(888-203-8100), can find contact information for their state
coordinators on the E-Rate Central Web site at
http://www.e-ratecentral.com/us/default.asp.
2.	Applicants are not aware that they should label their Universal
Service funded equipment;  and,
3.	An inventory or asset register did not exist.
		Labeling and maintaining an inventory of equipment
purchased with E-rate funding are not required under FCC rules, but they
are excellent practices.  Since there are rules concerning the transfer
and use of E-rate equipment, and since it is important to be able to
identify and track the equipment during E-rate audits, it makes sense to
conspicuously label it and to maintain an accurate inventory.  We
recommend that the label and the inventory record include the E-rate
funding year and the actual installation date.
4.	Applicants do not receive the Quarterly Disbursement Report and
would like to be able to specify where to receive the report.
		Shortly after every quarter in which USAC has authorized
the disbursement of funds for an applicant, the SLD sends that applicant
a Quarterly Disbursement Report summarizing the authorization(s).  This
is an important report.  If the vendor is discounting bills, it will
file a Service Provider Invoice ("SPI") to recover the discounts; the
report will show such filings.  If the applicant is submitting BEAR
reimbursement claims, the report will show when such BEARs have been
approved.  Note that the BEAR authorization date indicates only when a
BEAR was approved, not when a check was actually sent.  The SLD check is
usually mailed about 20 days later.  Remember that the check is sent to
the vendor who, in turn, is expected to pay the applicant within 10
days.  This means that an applicant shouldn't expect a BEAR
reimbursement check for at least 30 days after the authorization date.
		One common problem with the Quarterly Disbursement
Report is that it is normally sent to the applicant's senior
administrator (e.g., school superintendent) rather than to the
applicant's E-rate contact.  Presumably this is done as a financial
control measure, but often we find that these reports are never passed
on to the person most responsible for E-rate (perhaps because the letter
refers to "USAC," not "E-rate").  We recommend that E-rate coordinators
do a little internal education to make sure that all material marked
"USAC," "SLD," or "E-rate" reaches them.
5.	Applicants are unaware of the availability of Universal Service
training materials and resources.
		Most of this information can be found by following the
Training & Outreach links in the upper left-hand corner of the SLD's
homepage (see http://www.sl.universalservice.org/).  The resources
include an extensive series of PowerPoint slides from SLD applicant and
service provider training sessions (currently from the fall of 2004), a
recorded archive of Internet-based (WebEx) sessions held on various
E-rate topics since 2003, and a special e-mail facility to permit
applicants to "Submit a Question."  Copies of slides from E-Rate
Central's own 2004 E-rate workshops are also available at
http://www.e-ratecentral.com/us/nys/workshops/default.asp.

*	Contracts: Two Signatures and Two Dates

	Sometimes, to fully understand E-rate rules, it helps to be an
English teacher.  A case in point was a new rule for FY 2005 which read:
"Contracts must be signed and dated by both parties."  An important
point to grasp from this sentence is not only that the contract must be
signed by both the applicant and the service provider, but that it must
be separately dated by both.

	We recently became aware of a case in which the SLD is
questioning the validity of a contract that was apparently dated only in
the opening paragraph (with language such as "...executed this ___ day
of _______, 2005"), but that was not dated individually by each party
when they signed it.

	Because of the FCC requirement that a contract be completed
before the Form 471 application is signed and submitted, the new rule is
meant to document that both parties had indeed agreed on contract terms
as of the date of the second signature.

	An applicant and service provider, faced with SLD questions
regarding the validity of a single-dated contract, might try certifying
that the contract had indeed been fully executed on that date by both
parties.

	Next year, both parties should include a date next to their
signatures.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------

Disclaimer: This newsletter may contain unofficial information on
prospective E-rate developments and/or may reflect E-Rate Central's own
interpretations of E-rate practices and regulations. Such information is
provided for planning and guidance purposes only. It is not meant, in
any way, to supplant official announcements and instructions provided by
either the SLD or the FCC.

Patricia K. Middelburg, MEd, PMP
Project Manager and State E-rate Coordinator
Department of Administrative Services
Information Resources Management Division
955 Center Street NE, Room 470
Salem, OR 97301-2556
Telephone:  503.373.1365
Fax:  503.378.5200
pat.middelburg at das.state.or.us

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listsmart.osl.state.or.us/pipermail/erate/attachments/20050808/3aef8731/attachment-0001.htm