Proposed Filing Window Dates for FY2010
The USAC Board is recommending specific dates for the establishment of the Form 471 Filing Window for Funding Year 2010. The Board has requested authorization to accept Forms 471 between Noon Eastern Time on December 1, 2009 and 11:59 PM Eastern Time on February 15, 2010. If approved as recommended, the Filing Window would be open for 77 days.
Vendor Selection Documentation for a Successful E-rate Procurement
In the coming weeks, schools and libraries across the country will start posting Forms 470 in greater numbers. Once all of the bids are in, applicants must fully document the vendor selection process in order to demonstrate compliance with E-rate regulations regarding the selection of Service Providers. In this article, we will look at a few ways that schools and libraries can help ensure that they are properly documenting this phase of the E-rate process.
Establish Criteria Ahead of Time
Before service provider bids are evaluated, the applicant must decide the criteria to be used during the evaluation. We recommend setting up a bid evaluation matrix before the bids are reviewed to ensure that no service provider receives an unfair advantage during the selection process. The key factor of the evaluation process is the price of E-rate eligible goods and services. This factor must have more weight than any other single factor in the evaluation process (though it doesn't necessarily have to have the majority of total weight). In cases where there are multiple phases to the selection of vendors, the SLD says that price must be the highest-weighted factor in each stage of the process.
Using a tool to help evaluate service providers will guard against miscalculations in the scoring of bids. Using a tool like our Service Provider Evaluation Worksheet can also help make documenting the process easier.
List the Players
The group of people who are evaluating the bids should be documented, along with their title/role within the applicant organization. If anyone from outside of the organization is used to help evaluate bids--such as a technology consultant--be sure that they have no incentive to select one service provider over another or in any way would be biased in their evaluation of bids.
Vendor Disqualification
It is possible for an applicant to disqualify bids that do not meet a set of minimum requirements specified in the RFP or Form 470. From the SLD's perspective, these requirements must be objective--either "meets" or "does not meet" (or "binary," using the SLD's terminology), and not a subjective score. The process of disqualifying a bidder should be done early in the evaluation process and should be clearly documented for document retention/audit purposes.
The SLD has provided the following as some examples of "common bid requirements" that could result in a disqualification:- Service provider is required to register with the state procurement office
- Service provider is required to obtain a Service Provider Identification Number (SPIN) from USAC
- Service provider is required to have an FCC Registration Number
- Service provider is required to be bonded and insured
(source: USAC NewsBrief 5/14/2009)
Document Retention Tips Related to the Vendor Selection Process
Here are some items that applicants should keep on file, related to a vendor selection process:- A copy of the RFP, if one is issued in conjunction with the procurement.
- A copy of each bid received--winning, losing, and disqualified.
- Bid evaluation criteria.
- Copies of the bid evaluation sheets.
- A list of people who evaluated bids, along with their title/role/relationship to the applicant organization.
- Copies of notices to winners
- Memos/board minutes/notes to file related to vendor selection/award
- A copy of the signed/dated contracts
- Correspondence with service providers during the bidding/evaluation/award phase of the process
The FCC Wants to Hear From You
Over the last few weeks, the FCC has released several items related to the E-rate program in which they are seeking public comment. Here is a summary of these items:
New CIPA Requirements
In October 2008, Congress passed a bill that updated the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and mandates that schools will have to teach on line safety to students in order to receive E-rate funds for Internet Access and Priority Two funding. The FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that provides further details and seeks comments on their plans for implementing the new rules (as well as clarifying some existing rules).
Comments will be due 30 days after the NPRM is published to the Federal Register. Reply comments will be due 15 days later.
Funds For Learning News Story
National Broadband Plan
As part of the FCC's move to develop a national broadband plan, the Commission is seeking comments from stakeholders and the public about how broadband plays a role in education and how suggested changes to the E-rate program may affect broadband deployment in schools, libraries, and within communities across the country.
Comments are due on or before November 20, 2009. Reply comments are due on or before December 11, 2009.
Funds For Learning News Story
Reconsideration of Lazo Order
In the Lazo Order, the FCC upheld a USAC decision to deny payment for work performed by the Petitioners for the Dallas Independent School District (DISD). In the denied appeal to the FCC, the Petitioners were part of a consortium of Service Providers headed by Micro Systems Engineering, Inc. president Frankie Wong. Mr. Wong and a former DISD officer were convicted of federal offenses in connection with defrauding the E-rate program.
The FCC asks for public comment on a petition for reconsideration. Comments are due on or before November 20, 2009. Reply comments are due on or before December 7, 2009.
Funds For Learning News Story
Reconsideration of Integrity Order
In the Integrity Order, the FCC upheld a USAC decision to suspend funding for Integrity Communications, Ltd. after an audit uncovered inconsistencies in its billing for services provided to an applicant. In the original RFP, the applicant defined that it would not issue progress payments for a project, and would only pay at its completion. The audit found that Integrity issued progress invoices to the applicant and billed USAC in progress invoices as well. The applicant paid its non-discounted portion of the project at the time the project was complete.
The FCC asks for public comment on a petition for reconsideration. Comments are due on or before November 20, 2009. Reply comments are due on or before December 7, 2009.
Funds For Learning News Story
|
|
Connecting to Facebook