As discussed briefly in last week’s newsletter, EducationSuperHighway (“ESH”) has developed an online portal in which applicants or consultants can create Item 21 Attachments for their FY 2014 Form 471 applications. ESH’s Item 21 Entry Portal, while technically still in beta mode, went live on February 28th and is already being broadly publicized.
Our early test of the Portal indicates that it produces nice Item 21 Attachments, particularly if the applicants provide descriptive textual descriptions in the Notes section. Importantly, from a data collections standpoint, the Portal generates consistent data on line counts and speeds.
Our major concern with the Portal is that it may mislead applicants into believing that completion of one or more Item 21 Attachments in the Portal is equivalent to completing Item 21 Attachments in the SLD’s online Form 471 system. It is important to understand that the ESH Portal creates Item 21 Attachments which must be separately submitted to USAC. Completed Item 21 Attachments are not automatically linked to their Form 471 applications. This is potentially confusing because ESH’s early publicity suggests that the Portal has “automated the Item 21 submission process.” This it does not do. Instead, it simply creates Item 21 Attachments which can be submitted to USAC.
The other issue with regard to the ESH Portal is the degree to which the FCC is encouraging its use as an alternative to USAC’s online Item 21 Attachment facility. The following is the final guidance received by the FCC on this issue — guidance which falls short of a full endorsement:
A number of applicants and organizations have asked the FCC about our view of the new EducationSuperHighway online Item 21 portal. As part of its E-rate modernization proceeding, the FCC is seeking high quality, real-time data on what schools are purchasing and how much they are paying, as well as ways to improve the E-rate application process. Accordingly, we are very interested in the data that could result from applicants using the EducationSuperHighway Item 21 portal and the process insights we can gain from this kind of experimentation. We encourage interested applicants to consider using the EducationSuperHighway Item 21 portal. At the same time, we understand many applicants may choose to use the existing USAC online form or other submission methods, and we're by no means discouraging those submissions in any way.
If applicants do choose to use the EducationSuperHighway portal, they should be aware that they will need to e-mail the resulting PDF to USAC before the submission deadline. Automatic submission to the USAC system is not yet possible through the EducationSuperHighway portal, so applicants using the portal must e-mail the final document to USAC themselves.
For your own purposes, here are a few important facts which may provide context and be good for you to know:
- The portal collects the key USAC standard fields, but also some additional data that EducationSuperHighway will be analyzing after form submission.
- We understand that the portal will include a reporting interface for those who use it, allowing them to benchmark themselves against other applicants in various ways.
- Applicants using the portal need to email the resulting PDF to USAC themselves - it's very important that they not neglect this - the portal cannot yet directly submit information into USAC's system.
- The portal is for Priority 1 services only.
- Applicants using the portal need to take extra care that all the key numbers (471 Form number, FRN number etc.) match the corresponding numbers on their Form 471.
The bottom line, from our perspective, is that applicants should consider using the ESH portal to create their Item 21 Attachments if they are unsure of how to create an appropriate Priority 1 attachment and are uncomfortable with USAC’s online attachment system. In some cases, applicants may be encouraged to use the ESH Portal by their states that have been promised aggregate data on broadband usage by ESH. In any event, to repeat, it is important for applicants to understand that completion of Item 21 Attachments on the ESH Portal is not the final step of the Form 471 process. The ESH Portal simply creates PDF copies of Item 21 Attachments which the applicants must then transmit by e-mail, fax, or mail to USAC.
Form 486 Deadlines:
Typically, a Form 486 must be filed no later than 120 days from FCDL issuance or the start of service, whichever is later. Assuming services started July 1, 2013, the deadlines for FY 2013 funding waves 1-24 have already passed. The Form 486 deadlines for March are:
Wave 25 03/06/2014
Wave 26 03/14/2014
Wave 27 03/20/2014
Wave 28 03/27/2014
On-Site PQA Audits:
In recent years, USAC has conducted two types of audits. The most numerous were the Payment Quality Assurance (“PQA”) audits which focused on individual paid invoices. More detailed Beneficiary audits focused on all aspects of specific funding years. Traditionally, PQAs were conducted remotely by phone and e-mail, while the Beneficiary audits involved on-site visits.
This year, however, we have begun to see some on-site visits associated with PQA audits. We understand this change comes as the result of OMB dissatisfaction with the scope of the existing PQA process (designed to comply with the requirements of the Improper Payments Act). The number and duration of PQA audits involving on-site visits is expected to be limited.
FCC Appeal Decisions Watch:
The FCC issued the following two appeal orders, both consistent with past precedents:
- Ben Gamla Palm Beach, et al (DA 14-239): The FCC granted the requests of eight applicants seeking additional time to respond to PIA requests for further information.
- Boston Renaissance School, et al (DA 14-250): The FCC granted the requests of seventeen applicants, and denied seventeen others, seeking relief from the FY 2012 or FY 2013 application deadlines. Approvals were based on applications being filed within 14 days of the close of the filing window or, due to serious illness or death, within 30 days of the application deadlines. The FCC also dismissed two petitions for reconsideration on the basis that the applicants failed to identify any reasons not fully considered in the original FCC appeal decisions.
In another action, the FCC issued a Notice of Suspension and Initiation of Debarment Proceedings to Bryan J. Cahoon. Mr. Cahoon, who had been the IT director for the City of Lawrence, MA, and a city subcontractor through his own company, “orchestrated a scheme to circumvent the state’s procurement requirements that provided bidding information and instructions to your friends and business associates, who were awarded at least eight contracts with the city totaling $178,555.” He also “hired friends and associates to preform cabling and rewiring work for the city as interns” and then, through his own company, “billed the City of Lawrence for that work at inflated rates” leading the city to be “double-billed for the same work.” After pleading guilty, Mr. Cahoon was sentenced to a year in prison and ordered to pay $465,000 in restitution.
SLD Spring Training for Service Providers:
The SLD announced that its annual training sessions for service providers will be held this year in Tampa on May 8th and in Los Angeles on May 13th. An agenda for the training sessions is not yet available.