[Erate] E-Rate Training Presentation Slides

Wed Sep 21 12:00:12 PDT 2005

Last Thursday, the SLD posted four PowerPoint presentations that are
intended to be used in this fall's training sessions.  Since these
sessions are often used to announce new procedures, rule
interpretations, and enforcement priorities, this training material
should be reviewed carefully.  Some of the new information will only
apply to FY 2006; other will affect earlier funding years.  The
presentation materials are available at
http://www.sl.universalservice.org/training/2005_training.asp.  A brief
summary, prepared by E-Rate Central, is provided below.

ABCs of E-Rate:

For the most part, this presentation is simply an excellent review of
the E-rate program's rules, application steps, and procedures.  Several
points that should be noted are:

1.	Two slides (# 15 and #16) discuss the eligibility of services
based on "educational purpose," indicating that wireless telecom (e.g.
cellular telephone) services may be used offsite, but that Priority 2
services to non-instructional facilities ("NIFs) are generally not
eligible.  None of this is new.  What is significant is that the slides
do not address wireless Internet (e.g. Blackberry e-mail) services,
which the SLD has recently deemed ineligible, but which may, or may not,
be confirmed when the new Eligible Services List ("ESL") is finalized by
the FCC.
2.	Two of the technology planning slides (#23 and #24) stress the
importance of having and retaining a certified approval document for a
plan covering the entire funding year.  Since the SLD requires
technology plans to be approved before discounted services begin
(normally July 1), one slide also notes that the certified approval
itself must be dated before services begin.  An applicant submitting a
technology plan just before the approval deadline must be careful to
allow the approving agency sufficient time, not only to approve it, but
to certify it.
3.	A slide on calculating discount rates for NIFs (#46) notes that
a NIF usually carries a discount equal to the entity's aggregate
discount rate.  This is referred to as a "non-matrix discount" because
it may often be a non-standard rate (e.g. 47%) rather than a standard
discount matrix rate (i.e., 20%, 25%, 40%,..., 90%).  A special
situation arises, however, if a NIF contains one or more classrooms (but
is not otherwise considered a "school" by the state).  Often such
classrooms are used for special instruction and may serve transient
student populations.  In such a case, the SLD requires the applicant to
specify both total and eligible students for the NIF, and to calculate a
normal matrix discount.  If the student base of the NIF is transient,
the SLD requires the applicant to take a "snapshot" of the population on
a specific day (e.g., October 1).  Note that, since the students
captured in this snapshot may be attending other district schools at
other times, this process may involve some double-counting.
Eligible Products and Services:

This presentation is currently very basic, but may be expanded if the
FCC releases the new ESL by the time actual training begins.  Note that
the ESL documents included with the new training material are based on
the draft ESL currently being reviewed by the FCC.

New and Updated System Enhancements:

The following three enhancements are planned for the coming year:

1.	To encourage the use of electronic certifications for online
forms, the SLD plans to issue new PIN numbers to anyone who had
submitted and signed a Form 470, Form 471, or Form 486 for FY 2005.  In
the past, the SLD provided PINs only upon request.  This year, on or
about November 1, the SLD will assign (or "push") PINs to as many
applicants as possible.  Applicants, who have existing PINs, will be
assigned new ones.
2.	 A new process will permit applicants to upload Block 4 discount
worksheets to the SLD for incorporation into online Form 471 filings.
In the past, applicants had the ability to copy a Block 4 worksheet from
a previous application into a new online Form 471.  When a worksheet was
copied, however, the applicant still had to individually edit each entry
to reflect current year data.  The new process will permit applicants to
prepare Block 4 worksheets offline before uploading them.  The process
is optional and will probably be most applicable to large applicants who
already have school and student eligibility information in existing
databases.
3.	Improvements are being made to last year's prototype system for
creating online Form 471 item 21 attachments.  The presentation slides,
as posted, provide few details about the enhancements, but additional
information should become available before the Form 471 window opens.

Program Compliance 2005:

As always, this presentation is one of the most important because it
deals with issues that can lead to funding denials.  We suggest that
applicants and service providers review these slides carefully, paying
particular attention to:

1.	Four slides (#3 - #6) summarize the top ten reasons that
applications or individual funding requests are denied.
2.	A slide entitled "Imposing restrictions" (#10) notes that
applicants can set certain requirements on potential bidders, but
cautions that they must be prepared to explain any such restrictions.
3.	One slide in this presentation (#13), and two in the ABCs
presentation (#54 and #58), stress that a contract must be both signed
and dated by both the applicant and service provider.  The appearance of
this requirement in three slides is a not-so-subtle clue that the SLD
intends to enforce the rule strictly.  What is significant about slide
#13 is that it provides the first written guidance (despite conflicting
unwritten advice in the past) that the two-date/two-signature
requirement: (a) was always meant to be a rule; (b) was confirmed in the
FCC's Fifth Order which became generally effective October 13, 2004; and
(c), means that any contract signed before October 13th can and should
be brought into compliance by getting the missing signatures and/or
dates.
4.	A slide on state master contracts (#14) explicitly recognizes
that there are different types of such contracts, each with different
implications for E-rate applicants.  Only competitively bid, "single
winner," contracts can be utilized by applicants without undertaking
additional competitive procurement steps.  Applicants using "multiple
winner" or "multiple award schedule" contracts must be prepared to
document the selections of specific vendors. Contract providing "only
terms and conditions, not prices" do not meet FCC contract requirements.

5.	An interesting warning is included in one Selective Review slide
(#15).  It states: "Be careful to answer questions COMPLETELY and FULLY.
USAC will evaluate answers as they are given and will not reach out to
seek clarification."  This position appears to conflict with FCC
guidance given recently in the Fayette County appeal decision (see
http://www.e-ratecentral.com/FCC/DA-05-2176A1.pdf
<http://www.e-ratecentral.com/FCC/DA-05-2176A1.pdf > ).  This decision
indicates that when an applicant responds in good faith to a specific
documentation request, but the SLD deems the response insufficient, it
is incumbent on the SLD to provide a more detailed description of the
information needed before denying the FRN.
6.	A slide on educational service agencies (#28) recognizes that
ESAs (known in various states as IUs, ESC, BOCES, etc.) may be both
applicants and service providers, but must be careful to avoid conflicts
of interest and double dipping.  The SLD promises to have more detailed
guidance on ESA practices available on its Web site shortly.

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/20050921/c058997e/attachment.htm