Recovery Act: Agencies Are Addressing Broadband Program Challenges, but Actions Are Needed to Improve Implementation
Released: 2009-11-16T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Both NTIA’s BTOP and RUS’s BIP programs focus primarily on broadband infrastructure deployment, but the programs have some differences based on provisions in the Recovery Act (see table 1). BTOP funds are intended to expand broadband access to unserved and underserved areas. BTOP funds can also be awarded to projects that promote broadband demand and adoption and provide equipment, training, and access for higher education, job creation, public safety and health, and other facilities that serve vulnerable populations. BIP focuses on rural areas and its funds can be used solely for broadband infrastructure deployment. The agencies also have different project eligibility requirements. For example, the Recovery Act requires that BTOP applicants demonstrate that a project would not have been implemented during the grant period without federal grant assistance; the Recovery Act does not include a similar requirement for RUS broadband applicants.

To implement the Recovery Act, NTIA and RUS will fund several types of projects. The agencies will fund last-mile and middle-mile network infrastructure projects to extend broadband service in unserved or underserved areas. According to NTIA and RUS, last-mile projects are those infrastructure projects whose predominant purpose is to provide broadband service to end users or end-user devices. Middle-mile projects mostly do not provide broadband service to end users or end-user devices, but instead provide relatively fast, large-capacity connections between backbone facilities—long-distance, high-speed transmission paths for transporting massive quantities of data—and last-mile projects. NTIA is also funding public computer centers and sustainable adoption projects.

Both NTIA and RUS have experience with similar broadband grant or loan programs. Before receiving Recovery Act funding, NTIA implemented the Technology Opportunities Program; this program promoted the innovative use of information and communication technologies, primarily in underserved population segments, to promote public benefits. Additionally, NTIA implemented other, nonbroadband programs, such as the Public Safety Interoperability Communications (PSIC) program, which provides funding to public safety organizations; the digital television transition coupon program; and the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program, which provides funding to public broadcasters. RUS has prior and ongoing experience with several broadband-specific programs— including the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee (Broadband Access Loan) Program which funds the construction, improvement, and acquisition of facilities and equipment for broadband service in eligible rural communities, and the Community Connect broadband grant program, which funds broadband on a “community- oriented connectivity” basis to currently unserved rural areas for the purpose of fostering economic growth and delivering enhanced health care, education, and public safety services.

To implement the broadband provisions in the Recovery Act, NTIA and RUS coordinated their efforts and developed program milestones (see fig. 1). OMB tasked agencies implementing Recovery Act programs to engage in aggressive outreach with potential applicants. NTIA and RUS, with FCC coordination, held a series of public meetings in March 2009, explaining the overall goals of the new broadband programs. NTIA and RUS also sought public comments from interested stakeholders on various challenges that the agencies would face in implementing the broadband programs through these meetings and by issuing a Request for Information. NTIA and RUS received over 1,500 comments. FCC, in a consultative role, provided support in developing technical definitions and participated in the first kick-off meeting. On July 1, 2009, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke, and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced the release of the first joint Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) detailing the requirements, rules, and procedures for applying for BTOP grants and BIP grants, loans, and loan- grant combinations. Subsequently, the agencies held 10 joint informational workshops throughout the country for potential applicants to explain the programs, the application process, and the evaluation and compliance procedures, and to answer stakeholder questions. NTIA and RUS coordinated and developed a single online intake system whereby applicants could apply for either BTOP or BIP funding. NTIA and RUS initially indicated that they would award Recovery Act broadband program funds in three jointly-conducted rounds and initially expected to issue the NOFA for a second funding round before the end of calendar year 2009 and for a third round in 2010. In a draft version of this report, we recommended that the agencies combine the second and third funding rounds. Subsequently, on November 10, 2009, the agencies announced that they would award the remaining program funds in one round, instead of two. Both BTOP and BIP projects must be substantially complete within 2 years and fully complete no later than 3 years following the date of date of issuance of their award. issuance of their award.

NTIA and RUS Have Taken Steps to Address Challenges, Including Scheduling and Staffing, Associated With Evaluating Applications and Awarding Funds; However, Some Risks Remain

NTIA and RUS face scheduling, staffing, and data challenges in evaluating applications and awarding funds. The agencies have taken steps to meet these challenges, including the adoption of a two-step evaluation process, utilization of nongovernmental personnel, and publication of information on the applicant’s proposed service area. While these steps address some challenges, the agencies’ remaining schedule may pose risks to the review of applications. In particular, the agencies may lack the needed time to apply lessons learned from the first funding round and may face a compressed schedule to review new applications, thereby increasing the risk of awarding funds to projects that may not be sustainable or do not meet the priorities of the Recovery Act.

NTIA and RUS Face Scheduling, Staffing, and Data Challenges in the Evaluation of Applications and Awarding of Funds

Scheduling challenges. Under the provisions of the Recovery Act, NTIA and RUS must award all funds by September 30, 2010. Thus, the agencies have 18 months to establish their respective programs, solicit and evaluate applications, and award funds. While in some instances a compressed schedule does not pose a challenge, two factors increase the challenges associated with the 18-month schedule. First, while RUS has existing broadband programs, albeit on a much smaller scale than BIP, NTIA must establish the BTOP program from scratch. Second, the agencies face an unprecedented volume of funds and anticipated number of applications compared to their previous experiences.

The volume of funds to be awarded exceeds previous broadband-related programs implemented by NTIA and RUS. While NTIA and RUS have prior experience in administering grant or loan programs, these programs had less budgetary authority than the programs in the Recovery Act (see fig. 2). Of the $7.2 billion appropriated in the Recovery Act, NTIA received $4.7 billion for BTOP. In comparison, NTIA administered the PSIC program, a one-time grant program with an appropriation of about $1 billion for a single year, in close coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Additionally, NTIA’s Public Telecommunications Facilities Program received an average of $23 million annually and its Telecommunications Opportunities Program received $24 million annually. RUS received $2.5 billion from the Recovery Act for BIP. In comparison, RUS’s Community Connect program’s average annual appropriation was $12 million and its Broadband Access Loan Program’s average annual appropriation was $15 million. According to preliminary information from the agencies, they received approximately 2,200 applications requesting $28 billion in grants and loans in the first funding round. Based on the number of applications received and the funds requested, the average amount an applicant sought was $12.7 million, or almost half the size of the total average appropriation for NTIA’s l average appropriation for NTIA’s Technology Opportunities Program. Technology Opportunities Program.

NTIA and RUS also face an increase in the number of applications that they must review and evaluate in comparison to similar programs (see fig. 3). As mentioned previously, the agencies indicated that for the first round of funding alone, they received 2,200 applications. Of these 2,200 applications, NTIA received 940 applications exclusively for BTOP and RUS received 400 applications exclusively for BIP and 830 dual applications for both programs. Both NTIA and RUS will review the dual applications; if RUS does not fund the project through the BIP program, NTIA can consider funding the project through the BTOP program. By comparison, NTIA received an average of 838 applications annually for the Telecommunications Opportunities Program; for PSIC, NTIA and DHS received 56 applications from state and territorial governments containing a total of 301 proposed projects. RUS received an average of 35 applications annually for the Broadband Access Loan Program and an average of 105 applications annually for the Community Connect program. In addition, since BTOP and BIP will not carry over applications between rounds, applicants who do not receive funding in the first round must reapply to be eligible for consideration for funding in the second round. Therefore, a single proposed project may be evaluated multiple times by BTOP and BIP reviewers. Fourteen of 15 stakeholders with whom we spoke expressed concern that the agencies will face challenges in adequately reviewing the large number of expected applications in the time frame allotted.

Staffing challenges. NTIA and RUS will need additional personnel to administer BTOP and BIP. NTIA is establishing a new program with BTOP and will for the first time award grants to commercial entities. NTIA’s initial risk assessment indicated that a lack of experienced and knowledgeable staff was a key risk to properly implementing the program in accordance with the priorities of the Recovery Act. In its fiscal year 2010 budget request to Congress, NTIA estimated that it will need 30 full- time-equivalent staff in fiscal year 2009 and 40 more full-time-equivalent staff for fiscal year 2010. While RUS already has some broadband loan and grant programs in place and staff to administer them, it also faces a shortage of personnel. RUS’s staffing assessments indicated that the agency will need 47 additional full-time-equivalents to administer BIP. Prior to the Recovery Act, RUS had 23 full-time-equivalent staff in fiscal year 2008 for its Broadband Access Loan Program and no full-time- equivalent staff dedicated to the Community Connect program; RUS utilized personnel from the Broadband Access Loan Program for the Community Connect program. RUS indicated that it would have Broadband Access Loan Program staff also assist with BIP.

Data challenges. NTIA and RUS lack detailed data on the availability of broadband service throughout the country that may limit their ability to target funds to priority areas. According to NTIA and RUS, priority areas include unserved and underserved areas. NTIA and RUS require applicants to assemble their proposed service areas from contiguous census blocks and to identify the proposed service area as unserved or underserved. However, RUS and NTIA will be awarding loans and grants before the national broadband plan or broadband mapping is complete. NTIA does not expect to have complete, national data on broadband service levels at the census block level until at least March 2010. Eight of 15 stakeholders with whom we spoke said that the agencies face challenges determining whether proposed service areas meet the requirements for underserved and unserved in order to effectively award funds. To work around this problem, the agencies plan to use existing FCC data on broadband service levels (Form 477 data) and state broadband service maps where available. However, the data collected by FCC are at the census tract level, not the census block level. In addition, although FCC and NTIA have discussed NTIA’s access to and use of the Form 477 data, the agencies have not developed formal procedures; RUS has not discussed use of the Form 477 data with FCC. Finally, not all states have broadband maps.

NTIA and RUS Have Taken Steps to Address Challenges in Evaluating Applications and Awarding Funds

Two-step evaluation process. To address the scheduling and staffing challenges, NTIA and RUS are conserving scarce staff resources by screening applications and therefore reducing the number of applications subject to a comprehensive review by using a two-step process. In the first step, the agencies will evaluate and score applications based on the criteria delineated in the NOFA, such as project purpose and project viability. During this step, the agencies will select which applications proceed to the second step. After the first step is complete and the pool of potential projects is reduced, the agencies intend to conduct the second step—due diligence, which involves requesting extra documentation to confirm and verify information contained in an application. Since not all applications will proceed to the second step, not all applicants will be required to submit extra documentation. This will reduce the amount of information the agencies must review. In the NOFA, the agencies indicated that using this two-step process balances the burdens on applicants with the needs of the agencies to efficiently evaluate applications.

Use of nongovernmental personnel. Both NTIA and RUS are using nongovernmental personnel to address anticipated staffing needs associated with evaluating applications and awarding funds. To evaluate applications, NTIA is using a review system, in which three unpaid, independent expert reviewers examine and score applications. To be considered an expert reviewer, the individual must have significant expertise and experience in at least one of the following areas: (1) the design, funding, construction, and operation of broadband networks or public computer centers; (2) broadband-related outreach, training, or education; or (3) innovative programs to increase the demand for broadband services. In addition, NTIA will use contractors in an administrative role to assist the expert reviewers. NTIA officials said that the agency issued three guides to be used by the reviewers for each of the three project categories—broadband infrastructure, public computer centers, and sustainable adoption—and conducted more than 15 Web- based training seminars. RUS will use contractors to evaluate and score applications. Both NTIA and RUS said that they are confident that an expert would be able to draw conclusions on the technical feasibility or the financial sustainability of a project based on information provided in the application. Regardless of who reviews the application, the final selection and funding decisions are to be formally made by a selecting official in each agency.

Publish applicant information. To address the challenge of incomplete data on broadband service, NTIA and RUS require applicants to identify and attest to the service availability—either unserved or underserved—in their proposed service area. In order to verify these self-attestations, NTIA and RUS will post a public notice identifying the proposed funded service area of each broadband infrastructure applicant. The agencies intend to allow existing service providers in the proposed service area to question an applicant’s characterization of broadband service in that area. According to the NOFA, existing service providers will have 30 days to submit information regarding their service offerings. If this information raises eligibility issues, RUS may send field staff to the proposed service area to conduct a market survey. RUS will resolve eligibility issues by determining the actual availability of broadband service in the proposed service area. Currently, NTIA has no procedures in place for resolving these types of issues, but said that it is developing these procedures using its contractors and other means.

The Agencies’ Remaining Schedule May Pose Risks to the Review of Applications

During the first funding round, the compressed schedule posed a challenge for both applicants and the agencies. As mentioned previously, NTIA and RUS initially proposed to utilize three separate funding rounds during the 18-month window to award the entire $7.2 billion. As such, each funding round would operate under a compressed schedule. Eight of the 15 industry stakeholders with whom we spoke expressed concern that a small entity would have difficulties completing an application in a timely manner. Specifically, some stakeholders said that small entities were having trouble locating the professional staff needed to assemble an application. The compressed schedule also posed challenges for the agencies. During the first funding round, the agencies missed several milestones. For example, RUS originally intended to select a contractor on June 12, 2009, and NTIA intended to select a contractor on June 30, 2009; however, both agencies missed their target dates, with RUS selecting its contractor on July 31, 2009, and NTIA selecting its contractor on August 3, 2009. Also, the agencies intended to begin awarding the first-round grants and loans on November 7, 2009, but the agencies now expect to begin awarding funds in December 2009.

Because of the compressed schedule within the individual funding rounds, NTIA and RUS have less time to review applications than similar grant and loan programs. In the first funding round, the agencies have approximately 2 months to review 2,200 applications. With other telecommunications grant and loan programs, agencies have taken longer to evaluate applications and award funds. For example, from fiscal year 2005 through 2008, RUS took from 4 to 7 months to receive and review an average of 26 applications per year for its Broadband Access Loan Program. NTIA officials acknowledged that the BTOP timeline is compressed compared with the timeline for the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program, which operated on a year-long grant award cycle. For the PSIC program, NTIA and DHS closed the application period in August 2007 and completed application reviews in February 2008, a period of roughly 6 months. In California, the Public Utilities Commission took 4 to 6 months to review 54 applications and award funds for 25 projects in the first year of the California Advanced Services Fund, a $100 million broadband program.

Based on their experience with the first funding round, on November 10, 2009, NTIA and RUS reported that they will reduce the number of funding rounds from three to two. In the second and final funding round, the agencies anticipate extending the window for entities to submit applications. This change will help mitigate the challenges the compressed schedule posed for applicants in the first funding round. However, it is unclear whether the agencies will similarly extend the amount of time to review the applications and thereby bring the review time more in line with the experiences of other broadband grant and loan programs. NTIA officials indicated that the agency would like to award all $4.7 billion by summer 2010, to promote the stimulative effect of the BTOP program. RUS officials indicated that the agency will award all $2.5 billion by September 30, 2010, as required by the Recovery Act, indicating a potentially longer review process.

Depending on the time frames NTIA and RUS select, the risks for both applicants and the agencies may persist with two funding rounds. In particular, these risks include: Limited opportunity for “lessons learned.” Based on the current schedule, NTIA and RUS will have limited time between the completion of the first funding round and the beginning of the second funding round. NTIA and RUS recently announced that the agencies will begin awarding funds for the first funding round in December 2009. On November 10, 2009, the agencies sought public comment on approaches to improve the application experience and strengthen BTOP and BIP; the public has 14 days to respond with comments following publication of the notice in the Federal Register. Because of this compressed time frame, applicants might not have sufficient time to analyze their experiences with the first funding round to provide constructive comments to the agencies. Further, the agencies might not have sufficient time to analyze the outcomes of the first round and the comments from potential applicants. As such, a compressed schedule limits the opportunity to apply lessons learned from the first funding round to improve the second round.

Compressed schedule to review applications. Due to the complex nature of many projects, NTIA and RUS need adequate time to evaluate the wide range of applications and verify the information contained in the applications. NTIA is soliciting applications for infrastructure, public computer center, and sustainable adoption projects. Therefore, NTIA will receive applications containing information responding to different criteria and it will evaluate the applications with different standards. Even among infrastructure applications, a wide variability exists in the estimates, projections, and performance measures considered reasonable for a project. For example, in RUS’s Broadband Access Loan Program, approved broadband loans for the highest-cost projects, on a cost-per- subscriber basis, ranged as much as 15, 18, and 70 times as high as the lowest-cost project, even among projects using the same technology to deploy broadband. Previous experience with broadband loan programs also reveals the challenges inherent in evaluating an application based on estimates provided by the applicant. For example, as of fiscal year 2008, 55 percent of RUS broadband loan borrowers were meeting their forecasted number of subscribers. Nine of the 15 stakeholders that we interviewed expressed concerns that NTIA and RUS lack staffing expertise to determine whether project proposals will generate sufficient numbers of subscribers and revenues to cover operating costs and be sustainable on a long-term basis.

Continued lack of broadband data and plan. According to NTIA, national broadband data provide critical information for grant making. Additionally, some stakeholders, including members of Congress, have expressed concern about awarding broadband grants and loans without a national broadband plan. Under the Recovery Act, up to $350 million was available pursuant to the Broadband Data Improvement Act to fund the development and maintenance of a nationwide broadband map for use by policymakers and consumers. NTIA solicited grant applications to help develop the national broadband map, and grant applicants must complete their data collection by March 1, 2010. Additionally, based on provisions in the Recovery Act, FCC must deliver to Congress a national broadband plan by February 17, 2010. To prepare the plan, FCC sought comment on a variety of topics, including the most effective and efficient ways to ensure broadband service for all Americans. By operating on a compressed schedule, NTIA and RUS will complete the first funding round before the agencies have the data needed to target funds to unserved and underserved areas and before FCC completes the national broadband plan. Depending on the time frames the agencies select for the second funding round, they may again review applications without the benefit of national broadband data and a national broadband plan.

NTIA and RUS Face Staffing Challenges in Overseeing Funded Projects, and Despite Steps Taken, Several Risks to Project Oversight Remain

NTIA and RUS will need to oversee a far greater number of projects than in the past, including projects with large budgets and diverse purposes and locations. In doing so, the agencies face the challenge of monitoring these projects with far fewer staff per project than were available in similar grant and loan programs they have managed. To address this challenge, NTIA and RUS procured contractors to assist with oversight activities and will require funding recipients to complete quarterly reports and, in some cases, obtain annual audits. Despite the steps taken, several risks to adequate oversight remain. These risks include insufficient resources to actively monitor funded projects beyond fiscal year 2010 and a lack of updated performance goals for NTIA and RUS. In addition, NTIA has yet to define annual audit requirements for commercial entities funded under BTOP.

A Large Number of Projects to Oversee Creates Staffing Challenges

NTIA and RUS will need to oversee a far greater number of projects than in the past. Although the exact number of funded projects is unknown, both agencies have estimated for planning purposes that they could fund as many as 1,000 projects each—or 2,000 projects in total—before September 30, 2010. In comparison, from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2004, NTIA awarded a total of 610 grants through its Technology Opportunities Program—or an average of 55 grants per year. From fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2008, RUS awarded a total of 84 Community Connect grants, averaging 21 grants per year; and through its Broadband Access Loan Program, RUS approved 92 loans from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2008, or about 15 loans per year.

In addition to overseeing a large number of projects, the scale and diversity of BTOP- and BIP-funded projects are likely to be much greater than projects funded under the agencies’ prior grant programs. Based on NTIA’s estimated funding authority of $4.35 billion for BTOP grants and RUS’s estimated potential total funding of approximately $9 billion for BIP grants, loans, and loan-grant combinations, if the agencies fund 1,000 projects each, as they have estimated, the average funded amount for BTOP and BIP projects would be about $4.35 million and $9 million, respectively. In comparison, from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 2004, NTIA’s average grant award for its Technology Opportunities Program was about $382,000, and from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2008, RUS awarded, on average, about $521,000 per Community Connect grant award. Further, NTIA and RUS expect to fund several different types of projects that will be dispersed nationwide, with at least one project in every state. NTIA is funding several different types of broadband projects, including last- and middle-mile broadband infrastructure projects for unserved and underserved areas, and public computer center and sustainable broadband adoption projects. BIP can fund last- and middle- mile infrastructure projects in rural areas across the country.

Because of the volume of expected projects, NTIA and RUS plan to oversee and monitor BTOP- and BIP-funded projects with fewer staff resources per project than the agencies used in similar grant and loan programs (see table 2). In its fiscal year 2010 budget request to Congress, NTIA estimated that it would need a total of 70 full-time-equivalent staff for fiscal year 2010 to manage BTOP, which includes overseeing funded projects. After refining its spending and budget plans, NTIA said that it will need 41 full-time-equivalent staff for BTOP; at the time of our review, it had filled 33 of these positions. Based on NTIA’s estimate of funding 1,000 projects and its estimated 41 full-time-equivalent staff needed, NTIA will have about 1 full-time-equivalent staff available for every 24 projects. Under the Technology Opportunities Program, NTIA had an average of 1 full-time-equivalent staff in any capacity for every three projects funded annually from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2004. NTIA reported that it is continually assessing its resources and is considering additional staff hires. Similarly, RUS reported that it will need 47 full-time-equivalent staff to administer all aspects of BIP, and the majority of these positions were to be filled by the end of September 2009. These 47 staff members are in addition to the 114 full-time-equivalent staff in the Rural Development Telecommunications program which support four existing loan or grant programs, including the Telecommunications Infrastructure loan program, the Distance Learning and Telemedicine loan and grant program, the Broadband Access Loan Program, and Community Connect grant program. If RUS funds a total of 1,000 projects, as estimated, based on the 47 staff assigned to BIP, it would have 1 staff of any capacity available for every 21 funded projects. Under its Broadband Access Loan Program, RUS had more than 1 full-time-equivalent staff for every loan made annually from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2008. RUS reported that it could use other staff in the Rural Development Telecommunications program to address BIP staffing needs, if necessary.

NTIA and RUS Are Addressing Project Oversight Challenges by Procuring Contractor Services and Requiring Funding Recipient Reports and Audits

Contractor services. NTIA and RUS will use contractors to help monitor and provide technical assistance for BTOP and BIP projects, in addition to evaluating applications as discussed earlier. On August 3, 2009, NTIA procured contractor services to assist in a range of tasks, including tracking and summarizing grantees’ performance, developing grant- monitoring guidance, and assisting with site visits and responses to audits of BTOP-funded projects. Through its statement of work for contracted services, NTIA estimated that its contractor will provide about 35,000 hours of support for grants administration and postaward support in 2010 and about 55,000 hours of support for additional optional years. On July 31, 2009, RUS awarded a contract to a separate contractor for a wide range of program management activities for BIP. RUS’s contractor will be responsible for a number of grant-monitoring activities, including developing a workflow system to track grants and loans; assisting RUS in developing project monitoring guidance and policies; and assisting in site visits to monitor projects and guard against waste, fraud, and abuse.

In addition to its contractor, RUS intends to use existing field staff for program oversight. RUS reported that it currently has 30 general field representatives in the telecommunications program and 31 field accountants in USDA’s Rural Development mission area that may be available to monitor broadband programs. RUS field accountants conduct financial audits primarily within its telecommunications and electric utility loan programs. Two of the 30 general field representatives are dedicated to RUS’s broadband grant and loan programs, and RUS reported that the other general field representatives would be available to assist with BIP oversight if needed. Of the 47 full-time-equivalent staff that RUS has estimated needing to implement BIP, it plans to hire a total of 10 general field representatives and 10 field accountants on a temporary basis. In addition, RUS officials told us that Rural Development has an estimated 5,000 field staff available across the country that support a variety of Rural Development loan and grant programs. Although these individuals do not have specific experience with telecommunications or broadband projects, according to RUS, this staff has experience supporting RUS’s business and community development loan programs, and this workforce could be used for project monitoring activities if there was an acute need.

Recipient reports and audits. To help address the challenge of monitoring a large number of diverse projects, NTIA and RUS have developed program-specific reporting requirements that are intended to provide transparency on the progress of funded projects. Based on our review of the requirements, if NTIA and RUS have sufficient capacity to review and verify that information provided by funding recipients is accurate and reliable, these requirements could provide the agencies with useful information to help them monitor projects. The following reporting requirements apply to BTOP and BIP funding recipients: General Recovery Act reports. Section 1512 of the Recovery Act and related OMB guidance requires all funding recipients to report quarterly to a centralized reporting system on, among other things, the amount of funding received or obligated, the project completion status, and an estimate of the number of jobs created or retained through the funded project. Under OMB guidance, awarding agencies are responsible for ensuring that funding recipients submit reports to a central, online portal no later than 10 calendar days after each calendar quarter in which the recipient receives assistance. Awarding agencies must also perform their own data quality review and request further information or corrections by funding recipients, if necessary. No later than 30 days following the end of the quarter, OMB requires that detailed recipient reports are made available to the public on the Recovery.gov Web site.

BTOP-specific reports. The Recovery Act requires BTOP funding recipients to report quarterly on their use of funds and NTIA to make these reports available to the public. NTIA also requires that funding recipients report quarterly on their broadband equipment purchases and progress made in achieving goals, objectives, and milestones identified in the recipient’s application, including whether the recipient is on schedule to substantially complete its project no later than two years after the award and complete its project no later than 3 years after the award. Recipients of funding for last- and middle-mile infrastructure projects must report on a number of metrics, including the number of households and businesses receiving new or improved access to broadband as a result of the project, the advertised and averaged broadband speeds and the price of the broadband services provided, and the total and peak utilization of network access links.

BIP-specific reports. RUS requires BIP funding recipients to submit quarterly balance sheets, income and cash-flow statements, and the number of customers taking broadband service on a per community basis, among other information. In addition, RUS requires funding recipients to specifically state in the applicable quarter when they have received 67 percent of the award funds, which is RUS’s measure for “substantially complete.” BIP funding recipients must also report annually on the number of households; businesses; and educational, library, health care, and public safety providers subscribing to new or improved access to broadband. RUS officials reported that it plans to use quarterly reports to identify specific projects for on-site monitoring and to determine when that monitoring should take place.

NTIA and RUS also require some funding recipients to obtain annual, independent audits of their projects. The primary tool for monitoring federal awards through annual audits is the Single Audit report required under the Single Audit Act, as amended. We recently reported that the Single Audit is a valuable source of information on internal control and compliance for use in a management’s risk assessment and monitoring processes—and with some adjustments, we said, the Single Audit process could be improved for Recovery Act oversight. The Single Audit report is prepared in accordance with OMB’s implementing guidance in OMB Circular No. A-133. OMB’s Recovery Act guidance directed federal agencies to review Single Audit reports and provide a synopsis of audit findings to OMB relating to obligations and expenditures of Recovery Act funding. All states, local governments, and nonprofit organizations that expend over $500,000 in federal awards per year must obtain an annual Single Audit or, in some cases, a program-specific audit (referred to collectively in this report as a Single Audit). Commercial (for profit) entities awarded federal funding of any amount are not covered by the Single Audit Act, and states, local governments, and nonprofit organizations expending less than $500,000 in federal awards per year are also not required to obtain an annual Single Audit under the Single Audit Act. RUS, however, requires all commercial recipients of BIP funds to obtain an annual, independent audit of their financial statements under requirements that also apply to RUS’s existing broadband grant and loan programs. However, RUS’s existing audit requirements are different from the Single Audit requirements. NTIA has yet to determine what annual audit requirements will apply to commercial grantees; NTIA reported that it intends to develop program-specific audit requirements and guidelines that will apply to commercial recipients that receive broadband grants and plans to have those guidelines in place by December 2009. See table 3 for a description of BTOP and BIP audit requirements.

Several Risks to Project Oversight Remain

Lack of sufficient resources beyond fiscal year 2010. Both NTIA and RUS face the risk of having insufficient resources to actively monitor BTOP- and BIP-funded projects after September 30, 2010, which could result in insufficient oversight of projects not yet completed by that date.

As required by the Recovery Act, NTIA and RUS must ensure that all awards are made before the end of fiscal year 2010. Under the current timeline, the agencies do not anticipate completing the award of funds until that date. Funded projects must be substantially complete no later than 2 years, and complete no later than 3 years following the date of issuance of the award. Yet, the Recovery Act provides funding through September 30, 2010. The DOC Inspector General has expressed concerns that “without sufficient funding for a BTOP program office, funded projects that are still underway at September 30, 2010, will no longer be actively managed, monitored, and closed.” NTIA officials told us that NTIA has consulted with OMB about seeking BTOP funding after September 30, 2010, to allow it to close grants. RUS officials reported that given the large increase in its project portfolio from BIP, RUS’s capacity to actively monitor these projects after its BIP funding expires may be stressed. Without sufficient resources to actively monitor and close BTOP grants and BIP grants and loans by the required completion dates, NTIA and RUS may be unable to ensure that all recipients have expended their funding and completed projects as required.

Lack of updated performance goals. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) directs federal agencies to establish objective, quantifiable, and measurable goals within annual performance plans. GPRA stresses the importance of having clearly stated objectives, strategic and performance plans, goals, performance targets, and measures in order to improve a program’s effectiveness, accountability, and service delivery. Specifically, performance measures allow an agency to track its progress in achieving intended results. Performance measures also can help inform management decisions about such issues as the need to redirect resources or shift priorities.

NTIA has established preliminary program performance measures for BTOP, including job creation, increasing broadband access, stimulation of private sector investment, and spurring broadband demand. However, NTIA has not established quantitative, outcome-based goals for those measures. NTIA officials reported that the agency lacks sufficient data to develop such goals and is using applications for the first round of funding to gather data, such as the expected number of households that will receive new or improved broadband service. According to NTIA officials, data collected from applications for the first funding round could be used to develop program goals for future funding rounds.

RUS has established quantifiable program goals for its existing broadband grant and loan programs, including a measure for the number of subscribers receiving new or improved broadband service as a result of the programs. However, according to USDA’s fiscal year 2010 annual performance plan, RUS has not updated its goals to reflect the large increase in funding it received for broadband programs under the Recovery Act. In addition, RUS officials told us that the agency’s existing measure for the number of subscribers receiving new or improved broadband access as a result of its programs is based on the estimates provided by RUS borrowers in their applications. Consequently, these program goals do not reflect actual program outcomes, but rather the estimates of applicants prior to the execution of their funded projects.

Undefined audit requirements for commercial recipients. At the time of our review, NTIA did not have audit requirements or guidelines in place for annual audits of commercial entities receiving BTOP grants. NTIA officials reported that because BTOP is the first program managed by NTIA to make grants to commercial entities, the agency does not have existing audit guidelines for commercial entities. However, NTIA reported that it intends to develop program-specific audit requirements and guidelines that will apply to commercial recipients that receive broadband grants, and it plans to have those guidelines in place by December 2009. Although award recipients that do not expend more than $500,000 per year in federal awards may not be subject to an annual audit requirement, NTIA officials reported that they do not yet know the extent to which they will make awards in this range. In the absence of clear audit requirements and guidelines for commercial recipients of BTOP funding, NTIA will lack an important oversight tool to identify risks and monitor BTOP grant expenditures.

Conclusions

The Recovery Act established an ambitious schedule for NTIA and RUS to implement the broadband provisions. In particular, the agencies have 18 months to establish their respective programs, solicit and evaluate applications, and award funds. Compounding the challenge, NTIA must establish the BTOP program from scratch, and the agencies face an unprecedented volume of funds and anticipated number of applications.

The agencies initially indicated that they would award Recovery Act funds in three rounds; but, on November 10, 2009, the agencies announced that they would consolidate the second and third funding rounds and award the remaining funds in a single, second funding round. However, the schedule of the new, second funding round is unclear. Based on the experience in the first funding round and their legacy grant and loan programs, the agencies might have little time to thoroughly review applications to ensure that funded projects meet the objectives of the Recovery Act. Without adequate time to gather lessons learned from the first funding round and to thoroughly review applications, the agencies risk funding projects that might not meet the objectives of the Recovery Act.

In addition to reviewing an unprecedented number of applications, NTIA and RUS must oversee funded projects to ensure the projects meet the objectives of the Recovery Act and to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse. All funded projects must be complete no later than 3 years following the award of funds; therefore, some funded projects might not be complete until September 30, 2013. However, the Recovery Act only provided funding through September 30, 2010. Without adequate resources beyond fiscal year 2010, the agencies may not be able to ensure that all projects are completed as intended and to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse.

Due to the compressed schedule and limited staff resources, NTIA and RUS have had limited time to develop outcome-based performance goals for their programs. However, the agencies use of sequential funding rounds provides them with an opportunity to collect important data from funding applicants early in the program that could be used to develop meaningful performance goals. For example, because applicants must provide estimates for and reports on the number of households and other entities that will receive new or improved broadband service as a result of the projects, NTIA and RUS should have a good basis to establish program goals for BTOP and BIP for the second funding round and to evaluate the effectiveness of federal spending for broadband deployment. Without such goals, future efforts to expand broadband deployment and adoption may lack important information on the types of projects that were most effective at meeting subscriber goals and other targets, thereby limiting the ability to apply federal resources to programs with the best likelihood of success.

Finally, although NTIA and RUS have established a range of reporting requirements for funding recipients, NTIA has yet to define what annual auditing requirements, if any, will apply to commercial funding recipients under BTOP. Although we have previously reported that the Single Audit Act’s annual audit requirement is not a perfect tool to oversee Recovery Act funding, the absence of an annual audit requirement for commercial entities would hamper NTIA’s oversight of its Recovery Act funding. For example, NTIA would lack independent auditors’ assurances that its funding recipients have important internal controls in place to fully track expenditures and guard against fraud, waste, and abuse.

Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretaries of Commerce and Agriculture take the following three actions: 1. To reduce the risk of awarding funds to projects that may not be sustainable or do not meet the priorities of the Recovery Act delay the issuance of the second NOFA in order to provide time to analyze application and evaluation processes and apply lessons learned from the first funding round, and provide review time in the second funding round comparable with other broadband grant and loan programs. 2. To ensure that all funded projects receive sufficient oversight and technical support beyond September 30, 2010, and through their required completion dates, develop contingency plans to ensure sufficient resources for oversight of funded projects beyond fiscal year 2010. 3. To ensure that management has appropriate tools in place to evaluate the effectiveness of BTOP and BIP and to apply limited resources to achieve desired program outcomes, use information provided by program applicants in the first funding round to establish quantifiable, outcome-based performance goals by which to measure program effectiveness.

We also recommend that the Secretary of Commerce take the following step: To ensure that NTIA has sufficient insight into the expenditure of federal funding by commercial entities that may receive BTOP grants, determine whether commercial entities should be subject to an annual audit requirement.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the departments of Commerce and Agriculture, to OMB, and to FCC for review and comment. In the draft report, we recommended that NTIA and RUS combine the second and third planned funding rounds into one extended funding round. The departments of Commerce and Agriculture agreed with our recommendations; FCC and OMB did not comment on our recommendations. Subsequently, on November 10, 2009, NTIA and RUS announced that they would award the remaining program funds in one round, instead of two. Therefore, we removed this recommendation from the final report. In its comments, NTIA noted that the agency will take all appropriate additional steps to apply the lessons learned and address GAO’s concerns, including utilizing experiences from the first round of funding to improve the program, establishing outcome-based performance measures, and implementing reasonable audit requirements for commercial grantees. NTIA’s full comments appear in appendix III. For the recommendations directed to RUS, RUS described steps it is exploring that are consistent with our first recommendation. RUS agreed with the second and third recommendations. FCC, NTIA, OMB, and RUS provided technical comments that we incorporated, as appropriate.

In its comments, RUS noted that it has extensive experience awarding and managing grants and loans for rural America, including grants and loans for electric and telecommunications projects. RUS noted that by focusing on budget authority, our report does not reflect the true scope of its telecommunications programs. In particular, RUS noted that the Broadband Access Loan Program operated with a program level of $300 to $400 million. We chose to report the budget authority for the various programs to provide comparability between the grant and loan programs operated by NTIA and RUS. We acknowledge that RUS’s legacy programs operate at the program level exceeding the budget authority; however, the BIP program will also operate at a program level exceeding the $2.5 billion budget authority. RUS also noted that our report does not reflect the full scale of its existing staffing levels. In particular, RUS noted that it has 114 full-time staff dedicated solely to telecommunications programs and 30 General Field Representatives who can assist with oversight of the BIP program. In our report, we note the number of staff dedicated to RUS’s broadband programs, and we also note that RUS has additional staff, including 30 General Field Representatives, that the agency can draw upon for the BIP program. RUS’s full comments appear in appendix II.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and interested congressional committees. The report also is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512- 2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Stakeholder Organizations or Individuals Interviewed

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Commerce

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Michael Clements, Assistant Director; Eli Albagli; Matt Barranca; Elizabeth Eisenstadt; Dean Gudicello; Tom James; Kim McGatlin; Sara Ann Moessbauer; Josh Ormond; and Mindi Weisenbloom made key contributions to this report.