EPC Overhaul Planned for FY 2018:
A quarterly meeting of USAC’s Schools & Libraries Committee, held last Tuesday, included an E-rate Productivity Center (EPC) Status Update. The topic, previously marked as “Confidential” and scheduled for the Executive Session, was first discussed in the preceding Open Session. The news was astounding.
USAC announced that the Appian-based, applicant-facing portion of EPC was to be completely redone for the FY 2018 application cycle, built on a new platform. The current Appian platform will continue be used on the backend to support internal USAC processing operations. Although we will have to await further details, this presumably means that:
- USAC has apparently concluded that the Appian platform does not have the flexibility, at least without an overly expensive rebuild, to address all the applicant-related problems that have arisen during the FY 2016 application cycle.
- USAC will continue to improve the current EPC system for applicant use during the FY 2017 application cycle, but that major changes to the applicant interface will be deferred until the new system is ready. As a practical matter, we expect applicants to have an easier time in FY 2017, than they did in FY 2016. This is likely because much of the required information on entities, connectivity, contracts, and ongoing FRNs is now largely in place.
- USAC has less than two years to implement a new applicant front-end system. This is an aggressive time-frame for IT development, but it provides a longer window than USAC had to develop the current EPC system.
PIA Inquiries and Responses:
USAC released a Special Edition News Brief on April 27th describing the new EPC-based process for PIA reviewers to pose Form 471 questions to applicants, and for the applicants to respond. USAC also plans to send PIA response instruction emails to all Form 471 application contacts.
We expect PIA outreach on submitted applications — if needed — to begin this week. Although many of the likely questions, if required, will be similar to those applicants have received in past years, the new inquiry and response system is completely different. As with other aspects of the EPC system, this will take some getting used to. As a start, we recommend reading the Special Edition News Brief carefully. (Note: The EPC-based RAL correction process discussed in this week’s regular News Brief, referenced below, is also new and should be reviewed.)
The most important aspect of the new PIA response process is that USAC will no longer send actual questions to applicants via email. Instead, USAC will send emails to the contacts advising them that questions are available through their EPC News fields. It is then up to the applicants to find the questions and respond.
The first new challenge, therefore, is finding the appropriate News feed. From an applicant’s landing page, as shown below, there are two links to News in the upper left-hand corner. The News tab, indicated by the red arrow, leads to an inexhaustible list of everybody’s News items. Searching for your own items takes some practice. The News activity, indicated by the green arrow, links to an applicant-specific list of News items. That’s where to start.
The following is an example of a PIA inquiry as it appears in News. Note that it includes an abbreviated list of the topics included in the inquiry.
To see the actual questions, click on the blue button at the bottom (labelled with the application’s nickname). This will take you to the “Review Inquiries” page, as illustrated below, showing “Pending Inquiries.” Three buttons in the upper right-hand corner of this page link to the three options available at this stage. As discussed further in the Special Edition News Brief, the options are to:
- Request an extension on a question-by-question basis;
- Respond to the inquiries (including a file upload capability); or
- Submit a modification to the application.
At the bottom of the “Review Inquiries” example shown, there is a section (initially blank) labelled “Submitted Inquiries.” Over time, as inquiries are answered, this section will expand to show the applicant’s responses (and the upper “Pending Inquiries” section will be updated).
Strong FCC Denial of Invoice Deadline Extension Requests
Taking an unusually tough stance last week, the FCC denied FY 2014 Invoice Deadline Extension Requests (“IDERs”) submitted by 121 applicants (DA 16-448). In doing so, the FCC has set a high bar for determining what “extraordinary circumstances” might justify a waiver. Such circumstances apparently do not include:
- Employee turnover, confusion, or lack of understanding of E-rate rules
- Failure of service providers to approve BEARs by the deadline
- Post-submission postmarking delays by the postal service or third-party couriers
- Medical procedures or other family emergencies (of applicant staff or consultants)
The FCC’s decision is essentially a “we warned you” reminder of the new invoicing deadline rule enacted in the first E-rate Modernization Order (FCC 14-99, ¶ 238-242). The rule directed USAC to grant an automatic 120-day invoice extension to any applicant submitting an IDER — and here’s the catch — no later than the original invoice deadline. What the FCC is saying in this decision is that any applicant missing this deadline, by failing either to file a timely invoice or to file an IDER, has missed the chance to recover any otherwise valid discounts.
The FCC also moved to close off one temporary workaround of the strict invoice deadline or extension request requirements. Footnote #2 of the decision notes that USAC had already approved a number of blanket extension requests filed last fall by certain State E-rate Coordinators and other third-parties. Approval of these requests had provided some flexibility for individual applicants who had missed the IDER deadline. Henceforth, the FCC directed USAC to “only grant invoice extension requests from the service provider or billed entity associated with the invoices.”
Editorial: The FCC’s decision reminds us of a town board meeting story we heard years ago. The board was debating what to do about an exposed water pipe crossing between the banks of a small stream. Kids, playing in the area, were periodically breaking the pipe. Suggestions abounded for solving the problem including fencing off the area, electrifying the pipe, wrapping it with razor wire etc. The board ultimately agreed with a more practical suggestion to put in a stronger pipe.
In our view, E-rate needs stronger pipes to keep applicants — particularly small applicants — from leaking out of the system. The solution is stronger reminders, not severe penalties.
E-Rate Central encourages the FCC to reread its own groundbreaking 2006 Bishop Perry Order (FCC 06-54). An introductory portion of that Order, reflected throughout, sets forth a more enlightened view of what is needed in the E-rate program. It reads:
As we recently noted, many E-rate program beneficiaries, particularly small entities, contend that the application process is complicated, resulting in a significant number of applications for E-rate support being denied for ministerial, clerical or procedural errors. We find that the actions we take here to provide relief from these types of errors in the application process will promote the statutory requirements of section 254(h) of the Communications Act of 1934...by helping to ensure that eligible schools and librarie0s actually obtain access to discounted telecommunications and information services. In particular, we believe that by directing USAC to modify certain application processing procedures and granting a limited waiver of our application filing rules, we will provide for a more effective application processing system that will ensure eligible schools and libraries will be able to realize the intended benefits of the E-rate program as we consider additional steps to reform and improve the E-rate program.
Subsequent to the Bishop Perry Order, both USAC and the FCC took steps to make the E-rate process more forgiving. One example, at the USAC level, has been the late Form 486 warnings providing a second deadline. An example, at the FCC level, has been the FCC’s willingness to waive the Form 471 application deadline, particularly for applicants filing no more than two weeks late.
These actions by USAC and the FCC have focused primarily on the funding commitment side of the E-rate process, not on the ultimately more important disbursement side. This is where relief is now needed. Last week’s FCC decision is a giant step backwards. Hopefully, Petitions for Reconsideration will provide the FCC an opportunity to reverse themselves.