Source: https://www.fcc.gov/print/node/56961
Timestamp: 2015-05-26 10:55:04
Document Index: 411220425

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 54', '§ 54', '§ 54', '§ 54', '§ 54', '§ 54', '§ 54', '§ 54', '§ 54', '§ 54']

Wheeling School District 21, Wheeling, IL, et al.
Federal Communications Commission DA 13-1891
File Nos. SLD-676247, 749004, 806960
Schools and Libraries Universal Service )
Consistent with precedent,1 we deny one request from Net56, Inc. (Net56) for funding year 2009, one request from Wheeling School District 21 (Wheeling) for funding year 2010,2 and deny in 1 See, e.g., Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776, 8794, para. 30 (1997) (Universal Service First Report and Order) (subsequent history omitted) (holding that schools and libraries must seek competitive bids for all services eligible for discounts and that “competitive bidding is the most efficient means for ensuring that schools and libraries are informed about all of the choices available to them”). See also Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6, Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 26912, 26939, para. 66 (stating that a fair and open competitive bidding process is critical to preventing waste, fraud, and abuse of program resources); Request for Review of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Ysleta Independent School District,CC Docket Nos. 96-45, 97-21, Order, 18 FCC Rcd 26407, 26429, para. 50 (2003) (Ysleta Order) (stating that applicants may consider factors other than pre-discount prices, but price of eligible products and services must be the primary factor in determining whether a vendor is the most cost-effective); Requests for Review of Decisions of the Universal Service Administrator by Allendale County School District et al., CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 26 FCC Rcd 6109 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2011) (Allendale County) (finding that the petitioners used price of eligible products and services as the primary consideration when selecting the most cost-effective vendor and, therefore, they did not violate the E-rate program rules). 2 See Request for Review by Net56, Inc. of Decision of the Universal Service Administrator at 1 (filed Oct. 31, 2011) (Net56 Funding Year (FY) 2009 Appeal); see also Supplement to Request for Review by Net56, Inc. of Decision of the Universal Service Administrator (filed Dec. 11, 2012) (Net56 FY 2009 Supplement); Request for Review of Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by Wheeling School District 21, at 2 (filed Feb. 5, 2011) (Wheeling FY 2010 Red-light Appeal). Federal Communications Commission
DA 13-1891 part and grant in part one request from Wheeling for funding year 2011,3 all of which seek review of decisions by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) under the E-rate program (more formally known as the schools and libraries universal service support program).4 2.
Background. Under the E-rate program, eligible schools, libraries, and consortia that include eligible schools and libraries may apply for discounts for eligible services.5 The Commission’s rules provide that these entities must seek competitive bids for all services eligible for support.6 In accordance with the Commission’s competitive bidding rules, applicants must submit for posting on USAC’s website an FCC Form 470 requesting discounts for E-rate eligible services.7 Applicants must describe the requested services with sufficient specificity to enable potential service providers to submit bids for such services.8 Applicants must provide this description on their FCC Forms 470 or indicate on the form that they have a request for proposal (RFP) available providing detail about the requested services.9 After submitting an FCC Form 470, applicants must wait 28 days before making commitments with the selected service provider.10 Applicants must select the most cost-effective service offering, andprice of eligible products and services must be the primary factor in determining whether a particular vendor is the most cost-effective.11 Once an applicant has selected a service provider, it must enter into a contract and then file an FCC Form 471 requesting support for eligible services.12 Requiring a signed contract for eligible services helps to avoid waste, fraud and abuse by ensuring that the applicant has a fixed provider ready to offer discounted services and defined terms of services and prices.
Funding Year 2009. Based on our review of the record, we deny the request of Net56 with respect to Wheeling’s funding year 2009 E-rate application.13 Specifically, we uphold USAC’s determination that Wheeling violated the Commission’s competitive bidding rules for funding year 2009 by entering into a contract with Net56 without conducting a competitive bidding process.14 In funding 3 See Request for Review by Wheeling School District 21 of the Funding Decision of the Universal Service Administrator, 2011 Funding Year, funding request numbers (FRNs): 2189778, 2189782, 2189789, 2189795, at 3 (filed Dec. 17, 2012) (Wheeling FY 2011 Request for Review).
4 Section 54.719(c) of the Commission’s rules provides that any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of USAC may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 54.719(c). 5 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.501-502. In this Order, we describe the requirements of the E-rate program as they currently exist, but because the Order involves applications from funding years 2009, 2010, and 2011, and the Commission has re-organized the E-rate rules since then, where the Commission’s rules have changed, we also cite to the relevant rules as they existed during the relevant funding years.
6 47 C.F.R. § 54.503 (2013). See also 47 C.F.R. § 54.504 (2009). 7 Id. 8 See Universal Service First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9078-79, para. 575; 47 C.F.R § 54.503 (2013). See also 47 C.F.R. § 54.504 (2009). 9 See, e.g., Schools and Libraries Universal Service, Description of Services Requested and Certification Form, OMB 3060-0806 (Oct. 2004). 10 47 C.F.R. § 54.503 (2013). See also 47 C.F.R. § 54.504 (2009). 11 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.503(c)(2)(vii), 54.511(a). See also 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504 (b)(2)(vii), 54.511 (a) (2009). See Universal Service First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9029, para. 481 (finding that applicants may also consider relevant factors other than the pre-discount prices submitted by providers, such as prior experience, personnel qualifications, management capability, and environmental