| Wave 3 for Funding Year 2003 is scheduled to be released on Tuesday, May 27, 2003. Total funding in this wave is approximately $37 million for almost 1,780 applications. The cumulative total for FY 2003 is now $261 million.
Funding in the first three waves involved only applications — and generally smaller applications — for Priority 1 services. The SLD has not yet made a decision on the discount levels at which Internal Connections can or cannot be funded for FY 2003. An initial decision on this matter is expected shortly.
Any applicant who has been funded for services that will start on (or within a month of) July 1, 2003, can file a Form 486 now by checking the “Early Filing” box in Block 2, Item 6a. The normal deadline for filing a Form 486, for any applicant funded on or before July 1, is October 29, 2003, but it is far preferable to file early than to forget and miss the deadline.
|
| Within the next month, the SLD will begin accepting Form 470 filings for the next funding year (FY 2004). Based on a number of recent funding denials, applicants should realize that the SLD looks at Form 470s closely and will deny funding requests when it finds suggestions of improper procurement practices. Here are two problems to avoid.
(1) The SLD denied a series of funding requests for the stated reason that: “Vendor selected by RFP, not 470; 470 said no RFP…”
For each category of service, the Form 470 asks the applicant to indicate whether or not there is an RFP available. If there is, the applicant must specify how a vendor can get a copy. If there is not, the applicant must list the services needed on the Form 470 itself. This raises two questions.
First, if the applicant does not have an outstanding RFP at the time the Form 470 is filed, but plans on issuing one later in the procurement cycle, which check-off box should be used? The SLD apparently feels that checking the “No” RFP box is misleading if the applicant ultimately intends to select a vendor by RFP. To get around this problem, we suggest two possible solutions: (a) wait to file the Form 470 until the RFP is available; or (b), check “No” to be technically correct (at the time of the filing), list all services needed, but clearly indicate any RFP procedure that will be used in Item 12 of the Form 470.
Second, if the applicant has a RFP for some services in a category, but doesn’t have a RFP for others, which check-off box should be used given that the SLD’s system does not permit the applicant to check both? Again, there appear to be two solutions, namely: (a) file two Form 470s, one for the RFP services and one for the others (being careful to reference the proper Form 470 in each Form 471 funding request; or (b) check “No” RFP, list all services needed (including those on the RFP), and provide additional RFP guidance in Item 12 of the Form 470.
(2) More recently, the SLD has begun denying funding requests for the stated reason that: "Similarities in Internal Connections description on Forms 470 associated with this vendor indicate that vendor was improperly involved in the competitive bidding process."
These denials stem from SLD inquiries regarding the role of specific vendors in the procurement processes of their customers. Apparently, the SLD is looking at all the Form 470s filed by applicants associated with a given vendor. If the SLD finds that all or most of service descriptions are similar, it assumes that the vendor was intimately involved in the needs assessments and, by inference, improperly involved in those applicants’ procurement processes. While we believe that this is a “rebuttable presumption,” it obviously shifts the burden to the applicants to prove (either during PIA review or in an appeal) that a vendor was not improperly involved.
To avoid this problem, applicants should take care to file Form 470s clearly delineating their own needs in their own words. For non-vendor-specific samples of Form 470 service descriptions, see the examples provided under Form 470 Application Tip #4.
|