Minutes for August 25, 2004 Service Provider Call

FUNDING COMMITMENTS

Suspension of Waves

On August 20, 2004, the Service Provider list serve was sent a separate notice that USAC has been directed by the FCC to move to government accounting standards by October 1, 2004, and this has raised potential budget authority issues that may impact USAC. As a result, SLD has not issued FCDLs for any Funding Year since August 3, 2004, and will be temporarily suspending further issuance of such letters. USAC is working with the FCC to resolve these issues and, once that happens, SLD will resume issuing commitment letters. In the meantime, SLD is continuing to review applications so that, when the matter is resolved, we will be in a position to issue FCDLs. USAC expects the issue to be resolved in the near future.


B.	ELIGIBLE PRODUCTS DATABASE PILOT PROGRAM UPDATE About twenty-five or so manufacturers have enrolled in the Eligible Products Database pilot program, including some of the major product names in the E-rate marketplace. [FYI, these names include IBM, Cabletron, HP, Sprint, 3Com, Avaya, Cisco, Dell, Nortel, and Apple.] Some of these manufacturers have submitted information about their products to us, and we are actively reviewing this information. Other manufacturers have not yet submitted information, but are in the process of assembling their information for submission in the next several days. We are on schedule to make the product information available to the general public this fall. We are considering allowing additional manufacturers to enroll in the pilot program, and expect to make this determination in the next several days.

C.	ELIGIBLE SERVICES LIST UPDATE The FCC has issued a Public Notice requesting comments on a draft Eligible Services List. The draft List would be used for fund year 2005, and contains no fundamental changes from the current version of the List. Comments were due by August 23, and reply comments are due by August 30. The majority of comments received request that dark fiber services be considered as eligible for funding.

D.	FCC COMAD ORDER On July 30, 2004, the FCC released its Order on Reconsideration and Fourth Report and Order (FCC 04-181) that addresses several issues related to recovery of funds disbursed in violation of program rules. This order will become effective thirty (30) days after publication in the Federal Register. The following also appears on our web site. Following are direct quotes from the Order addressing these issues: Direction of recovery actions. …[R]ecovery actions should be directed to the party or parties that committed the rule or statutory violation in question. …[I]n many instances, this will likely be the school or library, rather than the service provider. …This revised recovery approach shall apply on a going forward basis to all matters for which USAC has not yet issued a demand letter as of the effective date of this order, and to all recovery actions currently under appeal to either USAC or [the FCC]. [The FCC] do[es] not intend to modify any recovery action in which the service provider has satisfied the outstanding obligation or for which USAC has already issued an initial demand letter. (para. 10) [The FCC] direct[s] USAC to make the determination … to whom recovery should be directed in individual cases. In determining to which party recovery should be directed, USAC shall consider which party was in a better position to prevent the statutory or rule violation, and which party committed the act or omission that forms the basis for the statutory or rule violation. For instance, the school or library is likely to be the entity that commits an act or omission that violates [the FCC’s] competitive bidding requirements, [the FCC’s] requirement to have necessary resources to make use of the supported services, the obligation to calculate properly the discount rate, and the obligation to pay the appropriate non-discounted share. On the other hand, the service provider is likely to be the entity that fails to deliver supported services within the relevant funding year, fails to properly bill for supported services, or delivers services that were not approved for funding under the governing FCC Form 471. [The FCC] recognize[s] that in some instances, both the beneficiary and the service provider may share responsibility for a statutory or rule violation. In such situations, USAC may initiate recovery action against both parties, and shall pursue such claims until the amount is satisfied by one of the parties. Pursuant to section 54.719(c) of the [FCC]’s rules, any person aggrieved by the action taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review from the [FCC]. (para.15) Enforcement action. Any recipient of the demand letter is obligated to repay the recovery amount by the deadlines described in the Commitment Adjustment Implementation Order [(FCC 00-350, released October 26, 2000)]. Failure to do so may subject such recipients to enforcement action by the [FCC] in addition to any collection action. (para.16) Good Samaritans. …Good Samaritans should not be subject to recovery actions except in those situations where the Good Samaritan itself has committed the act or omission that violates [the FCC’s] rules or the governing statute. (para.17)

FCC FIFTH REPORT AND ORDER

Please see the summary of this Order.

TRAINING

SLD is pleased to announce that it has been given approval to offer a training workshop in early October for service providers and consultants similar to the Train-the-Trainer for state E-rate coordinators. Our ability to offer this training depends upon whether we are able to secure the appropriate facilities at the right terms. Thus, I cannot provide you now with an exact number of spaces that will be made available. I do anticipate that it will be around 100-125. Sign up will be on a first come first serve basis. It will open 2 days after I have posted the notice to the website and the list serve. Please share this information. Depending upon the interest, I may need to restrict the training to 1 to 2 people per company. One of the issues surrounding us being able to provide this training is the commitment on the part of the service provider-consultant to attend. We are looking for a solution with the hotel to require payment in full at the time of registration. If successful, I will send an e-mail to the list serve and post the information on the SLD web site.

In addition, we anticipate making WebEx available for the Train-the-Trainer and Service Provider workshops. We are awaiting final approval for the new contract and I anticipate that we will have 100 concurrent seats available for the next six months.

It is my goal to have all of the PowerPoint presentations recorded and made available as WebEx recordings and hard copies in mid-October. We will also be offering biweekly and monthly live WebEx training session on various topics that will not be recorded. This will allow a greater number of folks to participate.

Finally, pending approval, I would like to offer up to five live training sessions across the country in October and November. These training sessions will be open to both applicants and service providers for the first time and will focus on competitive bidding and invoicing issues. All participants will be required to review the recorded sessions prior to attending.

I will be scheduling the service provider calls twice a month for the second and fourth Wednesday of the month beginning in November. We have requested that the FCC attend the call for a specified period once a month.

OTHER

GENERAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS RECEIVED BY E-MAIL—


Q.	As a service provider, is there any paper work required by USAC, upon being selected by an E-rate participate to provide USAC eligible services? Once the service provider has been selected, does USAC require any additional documentation, addendums, proposal, or etc? Betty Richardson, I-Net
R.	Yes, a service provider is required to have a SPIN, which can be obtained through the filing of an FCC Form 498. If the service provider is a telecommunications carrier, it is required to file an FCC Form 499 and comply with state and federal regulatory laws. As a new service provider, please visit our website at www.sl.universalservice.org. There is a wealth of information about the program, including all forms, instructions, and guidance on all areas of the program. If you have any questions after reviewing the site, then please contact our Call Center at 1-888-203-8100.
Q.	There appears to be a fair number of FY2002 and FY2003 appeals outstanding based on the recent USAC Schools and Libraries Committee meeting. Will those appeals be resolved before funding commitments for like (in some cases same) services in FY2004 applications are completed and FCDLs issued? Tony Wening, IBM
R.	As of August 20, 2004, for FY2003 there are 540 Appeals pending (333 are currently pending FCC response). For FY2002, there are 77 Appeals pending (28 are on currently pending FCC response). SLD applies the FIFO rule when processing appeals. That being said we are actively issuing ADLs as appeals batches complete the QA process. We do not have a process for coordinating appeals with applications pending PIA review in the current funding year. Also, it is important to note that due to the wave suspension, and although SLD is actively processing appeals and issuing ADLs, we are not able to issue any RFCDLs for appeals that warrant one until the suspension is resolved.
Q.	If tariffed services are approved and made available to applicants by an agency of the government (either the FCC or a state regulatory agency) and only the service provider requires a contract to begin or order tariffed services, may an applicant list these services as “tariffed” services in block 5 on their 471? That is to say, if the governing agency does not require a contract to be in place in order to receive the service at the tariffed rate, is the applicant required to list this item as a contract if only the service provider requires a contract? If the applicant is required by the service provider to enter into a contract, then the applicant should not list those services as tariffed in Block 5 of the Form 471. Tariffed services are, by definition, services set at competitive rates, approved by a governing agency. It has been our experience that many service providers are moving towards requiring contracts to start service at a tariffed rate (including local phone service, long distance service and circuits). We suspect that if the SLD requires tariffed services, which are ordered through a contract with the service provider, to be listed as a “contract” on the 471, that this position will effectively eliminate this (tariffed or "T") category for most applicants. Chris Weber, CRW Consulting On the last conference call, Mick Kraft talked about the mismatch that sometimes occurs with non-recurring service end dates and contract expiration dates. Specifically, Nick referenced the fact that some contract expiration dates are listed as June 30, while the service provider has until 9/30 to complete the work. My question is: is there a limitation on how long a contract may be valid? For example, when applying for non-recurring services for Year 2005, could an applicant and service provider enter into a contract with an expiration date of 9/30/2007? If this is allowable, would that situation require the posting of a "multi-year" Form 470? Chris Weber, CRW Consulting
R.	If an applicant has a contract with voluntary extensions for which it has filed a Form 470, it cannot extend the contract beyond its original expiration date without posting a new Form 470 and considering all bids received, unless –voluntary extensions were indicated in Item 13 of the Form 470 or in the RFP or for non-recurring services, contracts may be voluntarily extended to coincide with the appropriate deadline for the implementation of delivery and installation for nonrecurring services. In other words, if an applicant is granted an extension of time for delivery and installation of non-recurring services, the applicant may extend the relevant contract without rebidding. Applicants should file a Form 500 to notify USAC of such contract extensions. For more information, please see the WebEx recording.
Q.	Can I obtain a list of the customers who currently list our organization (Institutional Network (I-Net) as their Service Provider and have requested to receive reimbursement from E-rate for the services we provide? Betty Richardson, I-Net
R.	You may access this information on a stat by state basis using the data retrieval tool. Please go to our website for further instructions.
Q.	In the last few months we have seen a lot of denials for funding year 2003 stating that no contract or legally binding agreement was in place when the form 471 was filed. I am concerned as I know this was a requirement for funding year 2004, but was not retroactive to prior funding years. I called the help line and was told that all funding years it was a requirement that a contract be in place for internal connections. Amanda Hyland, CDW
R.	The helpdesk was correct.

REMINDER: PLEASE E-MAIL YOUR QUESTIONS FOR THE SERVICE PROVIDER CALL TO THE CUSTOMER SERVICE BUREAU BY COB ON FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 17, 2004. PLEASE REMEMBER TO WRITE, “QUESTION FOR SERVICE PROVIDER CALL” IN THE SUBJECT LINE SO THAT YOUR QUESTION IS ROUTED CORRECTLY. ALSO, PLEASE WATCH THE SLD WEBSITE FOR ANY PROGRAM UPDATES.

IF YOUR QUESTION IS RELATED TO INVOICING, PLEASE HIGHLIGHT THAT SUBQUESTION SO THAT IT IS ROUTED DIRECTLY TO OUR INVOICING TEAM. ALSO, PLEASE WATCH THE SLD WEBSITE FOR ANY PROGRAM UPDATES.

Content Last Modified: September 22, 2004