Report to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
by
The E-Rate Implementation Working Group (Working Group)
composed of
U.S. Department of Education
Institute of Museum and Library Services
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Rural Utilities Service
Education and Library Networks Coalition
July 31, 1997
II. Application Process Provided by E-Rate Ruling
The application process provided by the E-Rate Ruling starts with a filing with SLC by the party seeking to contract for the procurement of eligible services. On this form the applicant is to describe the services that it plans to procure in sufficient detail to enable potential providers to formulate bids (¶¶570, 575). These descriptions may be formal RFPs, particularly if required by, or most consistent with, State or local acquisition requirements, or less formal descriptions (?575). The applicant must also submit an inventory/assessment prepared by a person authorized to make purchases for a school or library, reviewing existing and planned facilities and providing at least information as to six specific educational-technology components (¶¶570, 572). The applicant is also required to have specific plans for using the inventoried technologies over the near term and into the future, including integration into its curriculum, although it is not clear whether these plans are to be submitted to SLC (¶573). This technology plan must be independently approved, ideally by the State agency overseeing schools or libraries, unless already approved for other purposes (for example, participation in Federal or State programs such as Goals 2000 or the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund)(¶574).5 Finally, the application is to contain the poverty level of each school for school applicants and each school district for library applicants, the identity of all co-purchasers and allocations of services in consortium procurements, and certain specified certifications (¶¶522-25, 574, 576-77).
SLC is to review all applications for completeness (¶575). It is then to post them, including the RFP/descriptions of services, on its website to attract bids (¶575). SLC is to calculate the discount(s) to which the applicant is entitled, to supplement the poverty information from the applicant (¶528, 576; see also ¶67 of the July 18 Ruling). The website is to be searchable by zip codes, number of students (schools) or patrons (libraries), number of buildings and other data in the applications (¶576). Posting of the application is to be confirmed to the applicant (?54.504(b)(3)). The applicant must wait four weeks after posting to sign a contract for the requested services (¶579). Existing contracts are not subject to the posting requirement for at least a limited period of time. 6
After signing a contract, the applicant is to submit to SLC the contract itself and a funding request based upon its estimated funding needs under the contract for the current and following funding years, although the contract may be contingent on funding (¶¶535 & n.1396, 579). The contracts may be filed electronically or by paper copy (?536).7 The applicant must also provide documentation on recurring and non-recurring fixed charges and estimated variable usage charges (¶536). If sufficient funds remain, SLC is to commit them and notify the applicant that funding has been approved (¶579). Although annual application and posting are not required for multiyear contracts, funds are to be committed only for services during the current funding year (??536-537, 544, 579).
The applicant may begin receiving service under the contract as soon as approval of its funding request has been received (¶580). Once service actually commences, the applicant is to notify the SLC to approve reimbursement (?580). 8
5 See note 5, above, for review by SLC as an alternative to State review. SLC would presumably have authority to treat the cost of peer review under its jurisdiction as an administrative expense or impose a fee to fund the review process on parties seeking peer review under SLC's own system. Since extensive State review of technology plans already takes place, the Working Group is not recommending any expense reimbursement for approvals under State jurisdiction. At least as long as the grand-fathering of previously approved plans remains in effect, the incremental burden on the States should not be substantial. If the situation changes in the future, SLC should review the matter and recommend appropriate action to the FCC.
6 Certain communications services, such as telephone or paging services, should not require a technology plan.
7 If the FCC meant to change the nature of the third form or add a fourth (see n.8, above), we shall make the appropriate modifications,also.
8 Paragraphs 51 and 65 of the July 18 Ruling describe this form as though it may be a periodic notification of support due, rather than a one-time notification of commencement of service.
| [ I. Introductions and Recommendations ] |
| |
|
[ III. Aggregation/ Disaggregations ] |
This page last updated 8/10/97 (pjh).