**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | File Nos. SLD-289493, *et    |
|                                  | *) | al*.                         |
| Requests for Review of Decisions | ** |                              |
| of the                           |    | CC Docket No. 02-6           |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| Universal Service Administrator  | *) |                              |
| by                               | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Caldwell Parish School District, | *  |                              |
| *et al*.                         | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
| Columbia, Louisiana              |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| Schools and Libraries Universal  | *) |                              |
| Service                          | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Support Mechanism                | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted: February 22, 2008 Released: February 22, 2008**

By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau:

# introduction

1.  In this Order, we grant in part and deny in part two Requests for
    Review filed by SEND Technologies, L.L.C./Nexus Systems, Inc. (SEND)
    seeking review of decisions by the Universal Service Administrative
    Company (USAC) denying one school and eight school districts
    discounted services for Funding Years 2002-2004 under the schools
    and libraries universal service support mechanism.[^1] The decisions
    at issue involve the denial of funding by USAC on the ground that
    the underlying applications violated the Commission's competitive
    bidding rules.[^2] For the reasons discussed below, we grant the
    appeals related to the following eight applicants: Caldwell Parish
    School District (Caldwell), Franklin Academy (Franklin), Lincoln
    Parish School District (Lincoln), Madison Parish School District
    (Madison), Morehouse Parish School District (Morehouse), Richland
    Parish School District (Richland), Tensas Parish School District
    (Tensas), and Webster Parish School District (Webster).[^3] We find
    that USAC improperly denied the requests for funding without
    sufficiently examining whether the Commission's rules were violated
    due to improper service provider involvement in the applicants'
    competitive bidding processes. Therefore, we remand the underlying
    applications associated with these appeals to USAC for further
    action consistent with this Order. We deny the appeal related to one
    applicant, Jackson Parish School District (Jackson), because the
    record shows that Jackson's competitive bidding process violated the
    Commission's competitive bidding rules.[^4]

2.  To ensure that the underlying applications are resolved
    expeditiously, we direct USAC to complete its review of each
    application listed in the Appendix and issue an award or denial
    based on a complete review and analysis no later than 60 days from
    release of this Order.[^5] In addition, we direct USAC to conduct
    further investigation and analysis prior to denying funding for
    suspected competitive bidding violations of the type addressed
    herein. In particular, during the initial and selective review
    processes, we direct USAC to be more specific when seeking
    information from and making document requests from applicants and to
    explain the consequences of not providing the requested
    documentation or information when it makes the requests.

# background

3.  Under the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism
    (also known as the E-rate program), eligible schools, libraries, and
    consortia that include eligible schools and libraries, may apply for
    discounts for eligible telecommunications services, Internet access,
    and internal connections.[^6] The Commission's rules provide that,
    with one limited exception for existing, binding contracts, an
    eligible school, library, or consortium that includes eligible
    schools and libraries must seek competitive bids for all services
    eligible for support.[^7]

4.  In accordance with the Commission's rules, each applicant must
    submit for posting on USAC's website an FCC Form 470 requesting
    discounts for E-rate eligible services, such as tariffed
    telecommunications services, month-to-month Internet access, or any
    services for which the applicant is seeking a new contract.[^8] The
    applicant must describe the desired services with sufficient
    specificity to enable potential service providers to submit bids for
    E-rate eligible services.[^9] The applicant must provide this
    description on its FCC Form 470 or indicate on the form that it has
    a Request for Proposal (RFP) available providing detail about the
    requested services.[^10] The RFP must be available to all potential
    bidders for the duration of the bidding process.[^11]

5.  After the FCC Form 470 is posted on USAC's website for all potential
    competing service providers to review, the applicant must wait at
    least 28 days before entering an agreement for services.[^12] Prior
    to entering into an agreement with a service provider, the
    Commission's rules require that the applicant carefully consider all
    bids submitted for provision of the requested services.[^13] The
    Commission concluded that price should be the primary factor in
    selecting a bid, but noted several additional factors that also
    should be considered by the applicant in determining which service
    provider meets their needs "most effectively and efficiently."[^14]
    After entering into a contract for eligible services, the applicant
    files the FCC Form 471 to request discounts on the eligible services
    to be provided.[^15] USAC then issues funding commitment decision
    letters approving or denying the requests for discounted services.

6.  Among other things, USAC is responsible for administering the
    application process for the E-rate program.[^16] Pursuant to this
    authority, USAC developed a procedure to detect applications that
    may be in violation of the Commission's competitive bidding rules by
    searching for similar language used in FCC Forms 470 filed by other
    schools, libraries, and consortia that selected the same service
    provider through their competitive bidding processes.[^17] This
    procedure, described by USAC as "pattern analysis," contemplates the
    possibility that a group of applicants, all with the same service
    provider, violated the competitive bidding rules.

7.  In the *Academy of Careers Order*, the Commission determined that
    USAC improperly denied requests for funding based on its "pattern
    analysis" procedure when USAC stopped its review after identifying a
    pattern in certain applications without sufficiently examining
    whether the Commission's rules were actually violated due to
    improper third-party participation in the competitive bidding
    process, and granted the appeals at issue.[^18] Additionally, the
    Commission required USAC to conduct further investigation and
    analysis prior to denying funding where USAC suspects that a service
    provider has improperly participated in an applicant's bidding
    process due to the results of its pattern analysis procedure.[^19]
    In response to the direction given by the Commission in the *Academy
    of Careers Order*, USAC began to issue Pattern Analysis Information
    Request (PAIR) letters seeking additional information from
    applicants where USAC suspects that the service provider has
    improperly participated in the competitive bidding process.[^20]

8.  With regard to the applications at issue in this Order, USAC denied
    funding on the grounds that the applicants' responses to the
    questions presented in the PAIR letters failed to demonstrate that
    the service provider, SEND, did not participate in the competitive
    bidding process in violation of the Commission's competitive bidding
    rules.[^21] SEND seeks review of the decisions by USAC and contends
    that the assistance it provided to the applicants does not
    constitute improper service provider involvement in the competitive
    bidding process and does not violate the Commission's competitive
    bidding rules.[^22]

# discussion

9.  Based on the record before us, we grant the appeals related to eight
    applications -- Caldwell, Franklin, Lincoln, Madison, Morehouse,
    Richland, Tensas, and Webster. We deny the appeal related to
    Jackson.

10. *[Applications Filed by Caldwell, Franklin, Lincoln, Madison,
    Morehouse, Richland, Tensas, and Webster]{.underline}*. We find that
    USAC improperly denied these eight requests for funding without
    sufficiently examining whether the Commission's rules actually were
    violated due to improper service provider involvement in the
    applicants' competitive bidding processes. USAC denied funding to
    these eight applicants on the grounds that the applicants' responses
    to the questions presented in the PAIR letters failed to demonstrate
    that the service provider, SEND, did not participate in the
    competitive bidding process in violation of the Commission's
    competitive bidding rules.[^23] Specifically, USAC indicated that
    the applicants did not explain why the section regarding the
    "Summary of Needs or Services Requested" on their FCC Forms 470 was
    similar to those of other applicants at issue here who also selected
    SEND as their service provider.[^24] In explaining the funding
    denials, USAC stated that "\[s\]ince you have not explained why the
    documents are similar, and since you allowed Send Technologies to
    mail in your FCC Form 470 certification page during the competitive
    bidding process, you have not demonstrated that you did not allow
    your service provider to participate in the competitive bidding
    process."[^25] Additionally, USAC stated that "since you have not
    explained why your documents are similar, containing the same
    entries as other applications that have been deemed to violate
    program rules, you have not demonstrated that you did not allow your
    service provider to participate in the competitive bidding
    process."[^26]

11. We conclude that any perceived similarities on the applicants' FCC
    Forms 470 may not have been due to improper service provider
    involvement. Instead, the applicants' failure to explain any
    similarities was the result of confusion regarding the information
    sought from the PAIR letters, rather than an admission that a
    competitive bidding violation occurred. Although each PAIR letter
    stated in the introductory paragraph that the applicant's FCC Form
    470 had similarities to the FCC Forms 470 of other applicants who
    also chose SEND as their service provider, the questions themselves
    did not ask the applicants to explain such similarities.[^27]
    Instead, the questions asked for information about the person who
    filled out and submitted the FCC Form 470, the location from which
    the form was filled out and submitted, any service provider employee
    who assisted in the completion and/or posting of the FCC Form 470,
    the process used to determine the types of services for which
    applicant sought bids, and the individual or organization who
    participated in determining the services for which the applicant
    sought bids.[^28] Although each applicant answered the PAIR letter
    questions, only one applicant, Richland, addressed the issue of
    alleged similarities between its FCC Form 470 and other FCC Forms
    470.[^29] Specifically, Richland stated that any similarities
    between its FCC Form 470 language and that of another district's
    "was more likely the result of conversations between district
    personnel than a service provider."[^30] SEND also states in its
    appeal that any perceived similarities might have been due to the
    use of a service description template that was developed after
    training sessions and workshops held by USAC and various
    vendors.[^31] Thus, had USAC in its PAIR letters been more specific
    in its requests for information regarding the suspected competitive
    bidding violations, the applicants would have been able to provide
    the specific information and/or documentation necessary to
    demonstrate that they did not violate the Commission's competitive
    bidding rules.

12. Additionally, as indicated above, USAC also based its funding
    denials on the fact that all of the applicants gave their FCC Forms
    470 certifications to Mark Stevenson, an employee of SEND, to mail
    to USAC using SEND's Federal Express account.[^32] Thus, in addition
    to the questions about the similarities of their FCC Forms 470, the
    PAIR letters also asked each applicant to explain why the
    certification of the FCC Form 470 was mailed in by Mark Stevenson of
    SEND and to describe the role Mr. Stevenson played in the FCC Form
    470 process.[^33] Franklin, Madison, Morehouse, Richland, Tensas,
    and Webster responded that Mark Stevenson provided FedEx shipping
    service as a means to track delivery and that he played no other
    role with respect to their FCC Form 470s.[^34] Caldwell stated that
    the school employee who was responsible for mailing in the
    certification did not recall receiving mailing assistance from Mark
    Stevenson.[^35] Lincoln stated that it could not find any
    documentation to support the mailing location of the certification,
    but that Mark Stevenson played no direct role in the FCC Form 470
    process.[^36] Nonetheless, USAC determined that this action, in
    conjunction with unexplained similarities in the FCC Forms 470,
    constituted improper service provider involvement and violated the
    Commission's competitive bidding rules.[^37] We find that SEND's
    provision of Federal Express mailing service for the certifications
    does not, by itself, rise to the level of a violation of the
    competitive bidding process. Although we do not condone such
    actions, we cannot conclude under these circumstances that such
    assistance alone interfered with the competitive bidding process.

13. More importantly, we find that the applicants provided evidence that
    there was no improper service provider involvement. Each applicant
    asserted by sworn statement and under penalty of perjury that SEND
    did not participate in the competitive bidding process.[^38] In
    response to the PAIR letters, these eight applicants each identified
    school personnel as the persons involved with filling out and
    submitting the FCC Forms 470 and that all FCC Forms 470 were filed
    from the applicant's premises.[^39] Additionally, in their responses
    to the PAIR letters, each applicant stated that no one outside of
    its school district assisted with determining the types of services
    for which it would seek bids.[^40] In fact, each applicant described
    the decision-making structure employed by the school and identified
    the school board or school staff involved in making the final
    determination of the services requested and the vendor
    selected.[^41] SEND argues that the responses demonstrate that it
    did not improperly participate in the competitive bidding process
    and the Commission's competitive bidding rules were not
    violated.[^42] We agree and find that each of the applicants'
    responses identifies school personnel as the parties responsible for
    filling out and submitting the FCC Forms 470 and that a service
    provider was not involved with these tasks.

14. Therefore, based on the record before us, we find that these eight
    applicants and their service provider, SEND, did not violate the
    Commission's competitive bidding rules when completing and
    submitting their FCC Forms 470. Accordingly, we grant the appeals
    related to the applications filed by Caldwell, Franklin, Lincoln,
    Madison, Morehouse, Richland, Tensas, and Webster, and remand the
    underlying applications to USAC for further action consistent with
    this Order. We direct USAC to complete its review of these
    applications and issue an award or denial based on a complete review
    and analysis no later than 60 days from release of this Order.[^43]
    In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to
    the ultimate eligibility of the requested services.[^44]

15. *[Application Filed by Jackson]{.underline}*. Based on the record
    before us, we find that Jackson's competitive bidding process
    violated the Commission's competitive bidding rules.[^45] In
    response to USAC's question about whether any service provider
    played a role in its competitive bidding process, Jackson stated
    that Mark Stevenson, a SEND employee: (1) advised Jackson in
    determining the types of services it needed and for which it would
    seek bids; (2) assisted Jackson in filling out the FCC Form 470;
    and (3) submitted the FCC Form 470 from SEND's office.[^46] SEND,
    however, argues that it complied with program guidelines provided by
    USAC and the Commission's rules.[^47] Specifically, SEND asserts
    that its actions reflect the type of vendor-neutral assistance that
    is permitted according to USAC's website and that the actions of
    Jackson and SEND are in compliance with the Commission's rules and
    orders, including the Commission's *MasterMind* *Order*.[^48]

16. We disagree with SEND that its actions reflect permitted
    vendor-neutral assistance. The Commission's rules require applicants
    to comply with its competitive bidding rules.[^49] USAC provides
    guidelines regarding E-rate matters, including competitive bidding,
    on its website in the form of written training presentations.[^50]
    Specifically, the 2001 training presentation stated that it was
    permissible for service providers to assist in developing RFPs under
    certain conditions.[^51] One of these conditions was that the
    applicant could not reveal information to the service provider that
    the applicant did not share with all prospective bidders.[^52] In
    addition, the training presentation indicated that service providers
    were prohibited from filling out E-rate program forms for applicants
    that require applicant certifications, such as the FCC Form
    470.[^53] Finally, the training presentation stated that the FCC
    Form 470 must be completed by the entity that will negotiate with
    prospective bidders.[^54]

17. In this instance, the actions of Jackson and SEND violated these
    conditions. First, Jackson admitted that Mark Stevenson from SEND
    helped Jackson to determine what types of services to seek.[^55] In
    so doing, Jackson necessarily revealed information to SEND that it
    did not reveal to any other prospective bidder. Second, Jackson also
    admitted that Mark Stevenson assisted in filling out the FCC Form
    470 and submitted the form from SEND's office.[^56] This was a clear
    violation of the prohibition against service providers filling out
    forms that require an applicant's certification, as well as a
    violation of the mandate that the FCC Form 470 be completed by the
    entity that will negotiate with prospective bidders.[^57] In this
    case, SEND assisted in completing the FCC Form 470 even though
    Jackson was the school that would negotiate with prospective
    bidders. We find that this level of involvement inhibits the
    applicant's competitive bidding process. Because Jackson gave SEND
    the opportunity to tailor the FCC Form 470 to the exact services
    that SEND offers, Jackson gave SEND information that it did not
    provide to competing service providers. Third, SEND performed many
    of the competitive bidding tasks that would ordinarily have been
    performed by Jackson. For example, Jackson did not have to prepare a
    list of services to bid out, fill out the FCC Form 470, or submit
    the FCC Form 470 to USAC. Therefore, the assistance that SEND
    provided to Jackson may have caused Jackson to look more favorably
    on SEND's bid as opposed to bids from companies who did not provide
    such assistance. Such an outcome is inconsistent with the
    Commission's determination that competitive bidding is the most
    efficient means for ensuring awareness by schools and libraries of
    the array of choices available to them and enabling the schools and
    libraries to choose the best and most efficient provider of the
    requested services.[^58]

18. We also disagree with SEND's argument that the actions of Jackson
    and SEND complied with the Commission's findings in the *MasterMind*
    *Order*.[^59] As discussed above, the Commission concluded in the
    *MasterMind Order* that a competitive bidding violation occurred
    where a service provider that was listed as the contact person on
    the FCC Form 470 also was a bidder in the competitive bidding
    process.[^60] SEND argues that it was in compliance with the
    *Mastermind Order* because it was not an employee or representative
    of Jackson and was not listed as a contact on the FCC Form 470.[^61]
    We do not find this argument to be persuasive. Although SEND was not
    listed as a contact on the FCC Form 470, the Commission stated in
    the *MasterMind Order* that the FCC Form 470 must be completed by
    the entity that will negotiate with prospective service
    providers.[^62] In this case, SEND assisted with completing the FCC
    Form 470, identified the services for which Jackson would solicit
    bids, and submitted the FCC Form 470 from its offices.[^63] As
    stated above, these were actions that should have been performed by
    Jackson, the school that would negotiate with prospective service
    providers. We conclude that such direct involvement between SEND and
    Jackson at the FCC Form 470 stage infringed upon the competitive
    bidding process because allowing SEND to choose the services
    requested may have given SEND a competitive advantage, and also may
    have influenced Jackson to view SEND's bid favorably.[^64]
    Therefore, we find unpersuasive SEND's arguments that Jackson's
    competitive bidding process did not violate the E-rate program
    guidelines and the Commission's competitive bidding rules.
    Accordingly, we deny the appeal related to the application filed by
    Jackson.

19. Moreover, SEND argues that USAC should grant funding to each
    applicant at issue here because USAC failed to meet the Commission
    deadline for addressing its applications associated with the
    *Academy of Careers Order*.[^65] We disagree. In the *Academy of
    Careers Order*, the Commission directed USAC to complete its review
    of each application and issue an award or denial based on a complete
    review and analysis no later than 120 days from the release of the
    order.[^66] We find good cause to waive the deadline articulated in
    the *Academy of Careers Order* for all applications at issue
    here.[^67] We note that USAC's decisions to the remanded applicants
    in this Order were issued only two or three days late.[^68] Due to
    the volume and complexity of the applications at issue in the
    *Academy of Careers Order*, and given the fact that USAC missed the
    deadline by only two or three days, we believe that giving USAC
    additional time to process the applications related to the SEND
    appeals is in the public interest.[^69] We therefore, on our own
    motion, waive the deadline provided in the *Academy of Careers
    Order* for the applications at issue here.

20. Finally, we emphasize that the Commission is committed to guarding
    against waste, fraud, and abuse, and ensuring that funds disbursed
    through the E-rate program are used for appropriate purposes.
    Although we grant the appeals related to eight applications, this
    action does not affect the authority of the Commission or USAC to
    conduct audits or investigations to determine compliance with the
    E-rate program rules and requirements. Because audits or
    investigations may provide information showing that a beneficiary or
    service provider failed to comply with the statute or the
    Commission's rules, such proceedings can reveal instances in which
    universal service funds were disbursed improperly or in a manner
    inconsistent with the statute or the Commission's rules. To the
    extent the Commission finds that funds were not used properly, the
    Commission will require USAC to recover such funds through its
    normal processes. We emphasize that the Commission retains the
    discretion to evaluate the uses of monies disbursed through the
    E-rate program and to determine on a case-by-case basis that waste,
    fraud, or abuse of program funds occurred and that recovery is
    warranted. We remain committed to ensuring the integrity of the
    program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste,
    fraud, or abuse under the Commission's procedures and in cooperation
    with law enforcement agencies.

# ordering clauses 

21. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under
    sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated in
    sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Requests for Review
    filed by SEND Technologies, L.L.C., on November 20, 2006 and April
    9, 2007 ARE GRANTED as they relate to Morehouse Parish School
    District, Richland Parish School District, Webster Parish School
    District, Franklin Academy, Caldwell Parish School District, Lincoln
    Parish School District, Madison Parish School District, and Tensas
    Parish School District, and the underlying applications ARE REMANDED
    to USAC for further processing consistent with this Order.

22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under
    sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to authority delegated in
    sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review
    filed by SEND Technologies, L.L.C., on November 20, 2006, as it
    relates to Jackson Parish School District IS DENIED.

23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in
    sections 1-4 and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to the authority
    delegated in sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 0.91 and 0.291, USAC SHALL COMPLETE its review of each
    remanded application and ISSUE an award or a denial based on a
    complete review and analysis no later than 60 calendar days from
    release of this Order.

24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to authority delegated under
    sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.102 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
    §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 1.102, this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon
    release.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Dana R. Shaffer

    Chief

    Wireline Competition Bureau

    **APPENDIX**

  ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------
  **Applicant Name**     **FCC Form 471 Number**  **Funding Year**

  Caldwell Parish School 289493                   2002
  District                                        

  Franklin Academy       412894                   2004

  Jackson Parish School  376220, 423981           2003, 2004
  District                                        

  Lincoln Parish School  302051                   2002
  District                                        

  Madison Parish School  287193                   2002
  District                                        

  Morehouse Parish       301743, 360815, 409404   2002, 2003, 2004
  School District                                 

  Richland Parish School 291953                   2002
  District                                        

  Tensas Parish School   288236                   2002
  District                                        

  Webster Parish School  292756, 363968           2002, 2003
  District                                        
  ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------

[^1]: The list of applicants is attached in an Appendix to this Order.
    In this Order, we use the term "appeals" to generally refer to
    requests for review of decisions by USAC. Section 54.719(c) of the
    Commission's rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action
    taken by a division of the Administrator may seek review from the
    Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c).

[^2]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504 (a)-(c). *See* Consolidated Request for
    Review of the Decisions of the Universal Service Administrator,
    Franklin Academy, Jackson Parish School District, Morehouse Parish
    School District, Richland Parish School District, and Webster Parish
    School District (filed Nov. 20, 2006) (November 2006 Appeal);
    Supplement to Consolidated Request for Review of the Decisions of
    the Universal Service Administrator, Franklin Academy, Jackson
    Parish School District, Morehouse Parish School District, Richland
    Parish School District, and Webster Parish School District (filed
    Mar. 14, 2007) (March 2007 Supplement), Consolidated Request for
    Review of the Decisions of the Universal Service Administrator,
    Caldwell Parish School District, Lincoln Parish School District,
    Tensas Parish School District, and Webster Parish School District
    (filed Apr. 9, 2007) (April 2007 Appeal) (collectively, SEND
    Consolidated Appeals). SEND also seeks a waiver of the Commission's
    competitive bidding rules on behalf of the applicants at issue.
    *See* April 2007 Appeal at 11-12. Because we grant the appeals
    related to eight of the applicants, the waiver request only pertains
    to the remaining applicant, Jackson. For the reasons discussed
    below, we do not find good cause to grant a waiver of our
    competitive bidding rules in this instance. 47 C.F.R. §1.3; *see
    infra* paras. 15-18.

[^3]: We estimate that the appeals granted in this Order involve
    application for approximately \$1,397,348.88 in funding. We note
    that USAC has already reserved sufficient funds to address
    outstanding appeals. *See, e.g.,* Universal Service Administrative
    Company, Federal Universal Service Support Mechanisms Fund Size
    Projections for the Second Quarter 2008 (Feb.1, 2008). Thus, we
    determine that the action we take today should have minimal impact
    on the Universal Service Fund as a whole.

[^4]: *See* November 2006 Appeal; March 2007 Supplement.

[^5]: In performing a complete review and analysis of each underlying
    application, USAC shall either grant the underlying application
    before it, or, if denying the application, provide the applicant
    with any and all grounds for denial.

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.501-54.503.

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504, 54.511(c).

[^8]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b).

[^9]: *See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,* CC Docket
    No.96-45, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 9077-80, para. 575
    (1997) (*Universal Service First Report and Order*) (subsequent
    history omitted).

[^10]: *See, e.g.,* Schools and Libraries Universal Service, Description
    of Services Requested and Certification Form, OMB 3060-0806 (May
    2003) (FCC Form 470).

[^11]: *Id*. Applicants are also required on the FCC Form 470 to name a
    person whom prospective service providers may contact for additional
    information about the application and RFP. *See* FCC Form 470, Item
    6 and Item 11, FCC Form 470 Instructions at 7, 10. In the
    *MasterMind Order*, the Commission concluded that an applicant would
    be in violation of its competitive bidding rules "when a service
    provider that is listed as the contact person on the FCC Form 470
    also participates in the competitive bidding process as a bidder."
    *Request for Review by MasterMind Internet Services, Inc.,
    Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Changes to the Board
    of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc.,*
    SPIN-143006149, CC Docket No. 96-45, 16 FCC Rcd 4028, 4033, para. 10
    (2000) (*MasterMind* *Order*).

[^12]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504(b), (c); *see e.g.,* Schools and Libraries
    Universal Service, Services Ordered and Certification Form, OMB
    3060-0806 (September 1999) (FCC Form 471).

[^13]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.511(a).

[^14]: *Universal Service First Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 9029,
    para. 481. Additional factors that an applicant should consider when
    permitted by state and local procurement rules include "prior
    experience, including past performance; personnel qualifications,
    including technical excellence; management capability, including
    schedule compliance; and environmental objectives." *Id*.

[^15]: *See* FCC Form 471.

[^16]: *Changes to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange
    Carrier Association, Inc., Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
    Service*, CC Docket Nos. 97-21 and 96-45, Third Report and Order in
    CC Docket No. 97-21, Fourth Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket
    No. 97-21, and Eighth Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No.
    96-45, 13 FCC Rcd 25058, 25064-65, para. 12 (1998).

[^17]: *See* *Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal
    Service Administrator by Academy of Careers and Technologies, et
    al*., *Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism*,
    CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 5348, 5349, para. 3 (*Academy
    of Careers Order*).

[^18]: *Id.* at 5350-51, para. 6.

[^19]: *Id*. at 5351, para. 7.

[^20]: *See e.g.*, Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to
    Patsy Whitlow, Webster Parish School District (dated June 6, 2006)
    (USAC June 6 Webster Letter); Letter from USAC, Schools and
    Libraries Division, to Regena Green, Richland Parish School District
    (dated June 5, 2006) (USAC June 5 Richland Letter).

[^21]: *See e.g.,* Further Explanation of Administrator's Funding
    Decision Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Tim
    Richmond and Cindy Mohler, Caldwell Parish School District (dated
    Feb. 8, 2007); Further Explanation of Administrator's Funding
    Decision Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Patsy
    Whitlow, Webster Parish School District (dated Feb. 8, 2007).

[^22]: *See generally* SEND Consolidated Appeals.

[^23]: *See infra* n.27.

[^24]: *See e.g.,* Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to
    Debbie Sandidge/Wanda Mitchell, Lincoln Parish School District
    (dated Feb. 8, 2007); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries
    Division, to Ann Thomas, Madison Parish School District (dated Feb.
    8, 2007) (USAC February 8 Madison Letter).

[^25]: *See e.g.,* Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to
    Scott Lautigar, Morehouse Parish School District (undated) (USAC
    Undated Morehouse Letter); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries
    Division, to Patsy Whitlow, Webster Parish School District (undated)
    (USAC Undated Webster Letter).

[^26]: *See e.g.,* Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to
    Tim Richmond/Cindy Mohler, Caldwell Parish School District (dated
    Feb. 8, 2007); USAC February 8 Madison Letter.

[^27]: *See e.g.,* Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to
    Leigh Jonson, Franklin Academy (dated June 6, 2006);USAC June 5
    Richland Letter.

[^28]: *See e.g.,* USAC June 6 Webster Letter; Letter from USAC, Schools
    and Libraries Division, to Scott Lautigar, Morehouse Parish School
    District (dated June 5, 2006) (USAC June 5 Morehouse Letter).

[^29]: *See* Letter from Regena Green, Richland Parish School District,
    to Michael Deusinger, USAC (dated June 20, 2006) (Richland June 20
    Letter).

[^30]: *See id.* at 2.

[^31]: *See* November 2006 Appeal at 16.

[^32]: *See e.g.,* USAC Undated Morehouse Letter; USAC Undated Webster
    Letter; Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Regena
    Green, Richland Parish School District (undated) (USAC Undated
    Richland Letter).

[^33]: *See e.g.,* USAC June 5 Morehouse Letter.

[^34]: *See* Letter from Leigh Jonson, Franklin Academy, to USAC,
    Schools and Libraries Division (dated June 7, 2006); Letter from Ann
    Thomas, Madison Parish School District, to USAC, Schools and
    Libraries Division (dated Dec. 4, 2006); Letter from Scott Lautigar,
    Morehouse Parish School District, to USAC, Schools and Libraries
    Division (dated June 16, 2006); Letter from Regena Green, Richland
    Parish School District, to USAC, Schools and Libraries Division
    (dated June 20, 2006); Letter from William Fletcher, Tensas Parish
    School District, to USAC, Schools and Libraries Division (dated Nov.
    8, 2006); Letter from Patsy Whitlow, Webster Parish School District,
    to USAC, Schools and Libraries Division (dated June 19, 2006).

[^35]: *See* Letter from John Sartin, Caldwell Parish School District,
    to Michael Deusinger, USAC (dated Aug. 8, 2006).

[^36]: *See* Letter from Wanda Mitchell, Lincoln Parish School District,
    to Michael Deusinger, USAC (dated Dec. 7, 2006) (Lincoln December 7
    Letter).

[^37]: *See e.g.,* USAC Undated Morehouse Letter; USAC Undated Webster
    Letter; USAC Undated Richland Letter.

[^38]: *See e.g.,* Letter from Patsy Whitlow, Webster Parish School
    District, to Michael Deusinger, USAC at 4 (dated June 19, 2006)
    (Webster June 19 Letter); Letter from John Sartin, Caldwell Parish
    School District, to Michael Deusinger, USAC at 5 (dated Aug. 21,
    2006) (Caldwell August 21 Letter).

[^39]: *See e.g.,* Webster June 19 Letter; Caldwell August 21 Letter.

[^40]: *See e.g.,* Richland June 20 Letter; Lincoln December 7 Letter.

[^41]: *See e.g.,* Caldwell August 21 Letter; Letter from Leigh Jonson,
    Franklin Academy, to Michael Deusinger, USAC at 1-2 (dated June 7,
    2006);Lincoln December 7 Letter; Letter from Ann Thomas, Madison
    Parish School District, to Michael Deusinger, USAC at 2-3 (dated
    Nov. 7, 2006); Letter from Scott Lautigar, Morehouse Parish School
    District, to Michael Deusinger, USAC at 2 (dated June 16, 2006);
    Richland June 20 Letter; Webster June 19 Letter.

[^42]: November 2006 Appeal at 9-11. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504 (a)-(c).

[^43]: In performing a complete review and analysis of each underlying
    application, USAC shall either grant the underlying application
    before it, or, if denying the application, provide the applicant
    with any and all grounds for denial.

[^44]: Nothing in this order is intended to authorize or require payment
    of any claim that has previously been released by a service provider
    or applicant, including in a civil settlement or criminal plea
    agreement with the United States.

[^45]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504 (a)-(c).

[^46]: *See* Letter from Mike Staples, Jackson Parish School Board, to
    Michael Deusinger, USAC (dated June 20, 2006) (Jackson PAIR
    Response).

[^47]: *See* November 2006 Appeal at 12-14; March 2007 Supplement at
    5-6, 10-11; April 2007 Appeal at 7.

[^48]: *See* March 2007 Supplement at 11-12, 14-19 (citing *MasterMind*
    Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 4030, para. 4).

[^49]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504, 54.511.

[^50]: *See e.g.,* USAC website, 2001 Training Materials (Enforcement
    Review),
    <http://www.usac.org/sl/about/training-presentations/2001-presentations.aspx>
    (retrieved Feb. 11, 2008). The relevant training presentation is
    from 2001, because Jackson signed its multi-year contract with SEND
    in Funding Year 2002. *See* Letter from Mark Stevenson, SEND
    Technologies to Talton Barron, Jackson Parish School District (dated
    Jan. 3, 2002).

[^51]: *See* USAC website, 2001 Train the Trainer Presentations
    (Enforcement Review),
    <http://www.usac.org/sl/about/training-presentations/2001-presentations.aspx>
    at 30-31 (retrieved Feb. 11, 2008).

[^52]: *Id.*

[^53]: *Id.*

[^54]: *Id.* at 27 (citing *MasterMind Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 4030, para.
    4).

[^55]: *See* Jackson PAIR Response at 2-3.

[^56]: *Id*.

[^57]: *See* USAC website, 2001 Training Materials (Enforcement Review),
    <http://www.usac.org/sl/about/training-presentations/2001-presentations.aspx>
    at 27, 30 (retrieved Feb. 11, 2008).

[^58]: *Universal Service First Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 9029,
    para. 480.

[^59]: March 2007 Supplement at 13-20; April 2007 Appeal at 10-12. *See
    MasterMind Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 4028.

[^60]: *Supra* n.11; *MasterMind Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 4030, para. 4.

[^61]: March 2007 Supplement at 14-20; April 2007 Appeal at 10-12.

[^62]: *MasterMind Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 4030, para. 4.

[^63]: *See* Jackson PAIR Response at 2-3.

[^64]: *See Requests for Review of the Decisions of the Universal
    Service Administrator by Ysleta Independent School District, et al,
    Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Changes to the Board
    of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier Association*, CC
    Docket Nos. 96-45, 97-41, Order, 18 FCC Rcd 26407, 26434, para. 60
    (2003) (the Commission found that direct involvement in the
    application process by a service provider would thwart the
    competitive bidding process). In this matter, Jackson admits that
    SEND had direct involvement in the FCC Form 470 application process.
    Jackson PAIR Response at 2-3.

[^65]: November 2006 Appeal at 5-6.

[^66]: *See Academy of Careers Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 5348, para. 1.

[^67]: Generally, the Commission's rules may be waived for good cause
    shown. 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. The Commission may exercise its discretion
    to waive a rule where the particular facts make strict compliance
    inconsistent with the public interest. *Northeast Cellular Telephone
    Co. v. FCC*, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (*Northeast
    Cellular*); *see also WAIT Radio v. FCC*, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C.
    Cir. 1969) (*WAIT Radio*), *cert. denied,* 409 U.S. 1027 (1972). In
    addition, the Commission may take into account considerations of
    hardship, equity, or more effective implementation of overall policy
    on an individual basis. *WAIT Radio,* 418 F.2d at 1157. Waiver of
    the Commission's rules is therefore appropriate only if special
    circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and such
    deviation will serve the public interest. *Northeast Cellular,* 897
    F.2d at 1166.

[^68]: The *Academy of Careers Order* remanded applications for
    Franklin, Jackson, Morehouse, Richland, and Webster on May 19, 2006
    and the 120-day deadline was September 19, 2006. *See Academy of
    Careers Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at Appendices A, C. USAC's decisions for
    these applicants were dated either September 21 or 22, 2006. Letter
    from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Cynthia Roberson,
    Franklin Academy (dated Sept. 22, 2006); Letter from USAC, Schools
    and Libraries Division, to Talton Barron, Jackson Parish School
    District (dated Sept. 21, 2006); Letter from USAC, Schools and
    Libraries Division, to Mike Staples, Jackson Parish School District
    (dated Sept. 22, 2006); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries
    Division, to Rick vanLoon, Morehouse Parish School District (dated
    Sept. 22, 2006); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division,
    to Rick vanLoon, Morehouse Parish School District (dated Sept. 21,
    2006); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Rick
    vanLoon, Morehouse Parish School District (dated Sept. 22, 2006);
    Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Regena Green,
    Richland Parish School District (dated Sept. 22, 2006); Letter from
    USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Linda Williams, Webster
    Parish School District (dated Sept. 21, 2006).

[^69]: 47 U.S.C. § 254(b).