Additional USAC FAQs:
This week’s USAC’s Schools and Libraries News Brief of October 2, 2020, includes an additional set of questions and answers concerning the second application window for FY 2020. These FAQs are summarized below.
Question: |
Should I put my entire request (original and additional bandwidth) in my second window FCC Form 471, or just the difference between the two? |
Answer: |
The FCC’s second window order (DA 20-1091) indicates that new applications should include funding requests for only the additional bandwidth, but applicants may find it easier to submit requests for the aggregate bandwidth. USAC indicates that either approach will be acceptable as long as the approach used is described in the FRN narrative. PIA reviewers will work with applicants to assure that requests are not duplicated.
|
Question: |
My original Category 1 funding request for internet access was denied and I have filed an appeal with USAC. Can I still apply for additional bandwidth? |
Answer: |
Yes, but. Funding of the second window application will be held pending resolution of the appeal. If the first request is denied due to a competitive bidding violation, the second window request will also be denied.
|
Question: |
I filed a service substitution for my original internet access funding request. Can I apply for additional bandwidth? |
Answer: |
Yes, but. Details of the earlier filed service substitution should be included in the FRN narrative in the second window application.
|
Question: |
If I post a new FCC Form 470 now, can I sign a multi-year contract and receive discounts on those services for the life of the contract? |
Answer: |
No. The waiver of the competitive bidding requirements only applies to additional bandwidth requested for FY 2020 (i.e., services received through June 30, 2021). You would have to rebid the services that will start on July 1, 2021 (following the Kalamazoo Order precedent discussed below). |
Other important FAQs on the second application window are discussed in our newsletters of September 21st and September 28th.
Understanding the FCC’s Kalamazoo Order:
The last FAQ in the preceding section addresses what is likely to be a common problem for schools utilizing long-term contracts for additional bandwidth in FY 2020 and seeking to extend the E-rate eligibility of those contracts into FY 2021 or beyond. There are two scenarios to consider.
Scenario 1: |
A school (a) previously filed a Form 470 and signed a multi-year contract with bandwidth escalation clauses; (b) initially filed a Form 471 for FY 2020 for less than the contract’s maximum bandwidth; (c) increased bandwidth under that contract in FY 2020 to deal with COVID-19 Internet demand; and (d), filed a new Form 471 for the increased cost in the second window.
If the increased bandwidth does not exceed what was included in the original procurement and contract, the school is already operating under a valid competitively bid contract. Although the school filed for additional funding in the second window to cover the increased bandwidth cost, it had no need to avail itself of the competitive bidding exception in the FCC’s second window order. As such, the school can continue to rely upon the original Form 470 and competitive procurement in FY 2021. |
Scenario 2: |
A school (a) obtained additional bandwidth under a new or amended contract not covered by its original procurement or FY 2020 application; and (b), filed a new Form 471 for the increased cost in the second window. As permitted for in the second window order, the school did not follow traditional E-rate competitive bidding protocols for the new contract.
This is the situation contemplated in the last FAQ above. To make this enhanced service E-rate eligible for next year, the school will need file a Form 470 and competitively bid the service for FY 2021. |
Converting a contract that was not competitively bid under E-rate rules (as per Scenario 2) into an E-rate eligible contract for future funding years is often referred to as a “Kalamazoo” process. The terminology traces back to a 2002 FCC decision (DA 02-2975) in favor of Kalamazoo Public Schools whereby the district rebid the service for the next funding year, treated the preexisting contract as one of the competing bids, and selected that the contract’s vendor as the winning bidder. Importantly, note that although the incumbent vendor’s contract may be considered a bid, E-rate rules require an applicant to fairly consider all bids received and to select the highest-scoring, most cost-effective bid.
Under the Kalamazoo Order on Reconsideration, the FCC clarified that “…in order to facilitate the application review process, it is advisable for applicants that choose to renew a pre-existing service after a bidding process to memorialize that decision after the bidding process is complete and record the date of this memorialization as the relevant contract award date in their submitted application for discounts.” For EPC purposes, the memorialized Contract Award Date (“CAD”) is used when the newly eligible contract information is entered into the EPC Contract Module.
If the existing contract vendor is an active participant in the E-rate competitive bidding process, as is often the case, it may be possible to amend the contract to the benefit of both parties. One amendment worth considering, if not already reflected in the existing contract, would be to realign the contract termination date with the end of the funding year to avoid the need to subsequently rebid the contract midyear.