Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2380
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC  20554
In the Matter of )
)
Requests for Review of )
Decisions of the )
Universal Service Administrator by )
)
Approach Learning and Assessment Centers ) File Nos. SLD-506121, et al.
Santa Ana, CA, et al.  )
)
Schools and Libraries Universal Service ) CC Docket No. 02-6
Support Mechanism )
ORDER
Adopted:  October 30, 2008 Released:  October 30, 2008
By the Acting Chief, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this order, we address 12 appeals of decisions by the Universal Service Administrative 
Company (USAC) concerning applications for discounts under the schools and libraries universal service 
support mechanism (also known as the E-rate program).1 All of 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 As discussed below, we find that the petitioners did not violate the 
Commission’s competitive bidding requirements with respect to the application numbers listed in the 
appendix.  We therefore grant the appeals related to the identified application numbers and remand these 
applications to USAC for further action consistent with this order.3 To ensure that the underlying 
applications are resolved expeditiously, we direct USAC to complete its review of the applications and 
issue a decision based on a complete review and analysis no later than 90 calendar days from release of 
this order.4
  
1 See Appendix for a list of appeals and associated application numbers addressed in this order.  In this order, we use 
the term “appeals” to generally refer to requests for waiver and requests for review of decisions issued by USAC.  
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).
2 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504 (a)-(c).
3 Although we grant the appeals with respect to the application numbers listed in the appendix, we make no finding 
as to the ultimate eligibility of the requested services for E-rate funding.
4 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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2380 
2
 II.         BACKGROUND
2. Under 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.5 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.6  
3. In accordance with the Commission’s rules, an applicant must submit for posting on 
USAC’s website an FCC Form 470 requesting discounts for E-rate eligible services for which the 
applicant is seeking a new contract.7 The applicant must describe the desired services with sufficient 
specificity to enable potential service providers to submit bids.8 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.9 The RFP must be available to all potential 
bidders for the duration of the bidding process.10  
4. After submitting an FCC Form 470, the applicant must wait 28 days before making 
commitments with the selected service providers.11 The applicant must then submit a completed FCC 
Form 471 to notify USAC of the services that have been ordered, the service providers with which the 
applicant has entered into an agreement, and an estimate of funds needed to cover the discounts to be 
given for eligible services.12  
5. Requests for Review.  The petitioners submitted their FCC Forms 470 to USAC to initiate 
the competitive bidding process for E-rate eligible services.13 Subsequently, the petitioners entered into 
service contracts and filed their FCC Form 471 applications with USAC for Funding Years 2005, 2006, 
  
5 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.501-54.503.
6 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.504, 54.511(c).
7 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b).
8 Id; see also Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket 96-45, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 
8776, at 9077-80, paras. 572-579 (1997) (subsequent history omitted) (describing sequence of designing a detailed 
technology plan and subsequently submitting a detailed description of services sought.)  
9 See, e.g., Schools and Libraries Universal Service, Description of Services Requested and Certification Form, 
OMB 3060-0806 (October 2004) (FCC Form 470).
10 Id.
11 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b)(4).
12 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(c).  
13 See FCC Form 470, Approach Learning and Assessment Centers (posted Dec. 22, 2005); FCC Form 470, Brevard 
County School District (posted Nov. 18, 2005); FCC Form 470, Charleston County School District (posted Jan. 12, 
2006); FCC Form 470, Hoboken School District (posted Dec. 22, 2005); FCC Form 470, Division of Juvenile 
Justice California Education Authority (posted Dec. 1, 2004); FCC Form 470, Leeds City School District (posted 
Jan. 14, 2005) (Leeds FCC Form 470); FCC Form 470, Los Fresnos Consolidated Independent School District 
(posted Jan. 5, 2005); FCC Form 470, New Orleans Public Schools (posted Jan. 8, 2006) (New Orleans FCC Form 
470); FCC Form 470, Northeast Arizona Technological Institute of Vocational Education (posted Dec. 23, 2005); 
FCC Form 470, Portland Public Schools (posted Jan. 13, 2005, and Jan. 14, 2005); FCC Form 470, Rio Grande City 
Consolidated School District (posted Dec. 20, 2005); FCC Form 470, Strathmore Union Elementary School District 
(posted Dec. 29, 2004). 
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2380 
3
or 2007.14 USAC denied the petitioners’ applications on the ground that the petitioners violated the 
Commission’s competitive bidding rules because they had issued RFPs, despite having indicated on their 
FCC Forms 470 that no RFP existed.15 USAC later affirmed these decisions on appeal.16 The petitioners 
then filed the instant Requests for Review with the Commission.17  
III. DISCUSSION
6. For the reasons explained below, we grant the petitioners’ appeals related to the application 
numbers listed in the appendix and remand these applications to USAC for further action consistent with 
this order.  In remanding these applications to USAC, we make no finding as to the ultimate eligibility of 
the services or the petitioners’ applications.18 We remind USAC of its obligation to independently 
  
14 See FCC Form 471, Approach Learning and Assessment Centers (filed Feb. 15, 2006); FCC Form 471, Brevard 
County School District (filed Feb. 8, 2006); FCC Form 471, Charleston County School District (filed Feb. 14, 
2006); FCC Form 471, Hoboken School District (filed Feb. 18, 2005); FCC Form 471, Division of Juvenile Justice 
California Education Authority (filed Feb. 18, 2005); FCC Form 471, Leeds City School District (filed Feb. 8, 
2006); FCC Form 471, Los Fresnos Consolidated Independent School District (filed Feb. 18, 2005); FCC Form 471, 
New Orleans Public Schools (filed Feb. 16, 2006 and Feb. 8, 2007); FCC Form 471, Northeast Arizona 
Technological Institute of Vocational Education (filed Feb. 16, 2006); FCC Form 471, Portland Public Schools 
(filed Feb. 18, 2005); FCC Form 471, Rio Grande City Consolidated School District (filed Feb. 15, 2006 and Feb. 
16, 2006); FCC Form 471, Strathmore Union Elementary School District (filed Feb. 14, 2005). 
15 Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Kathy Jones, Approach Learning and Assessment Centers 
(dated Jan. 30, 2007); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Richard Larson, eRate Consulting 
Services, LLC, on behalf of Brevard County School District (dated Aug. 15, 2006); Letter from USAC, Schools and 
Libraries Division, to Julie Wheat, Charleston County School District (dated May 8, 2007); Letter from USAC, 
Schools and Libraries Division, to Dan Riorden, Hoboken School District (dated Aug. 15, 2006); Letter from 
USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to David Marson, Division of Juvenile Justice California Education 
Authority (dated Dec. 27, 2005); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Mark E. Pierce, Leeds City 
School District (dated Dec. 27, 2006); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Brad Rohrbach, 
Strathmore Union Elementary School District (dated May 8, 2006); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries 
Division, to David Young, Los Fresnos Consolidated Independent School District (dated Dec. 14, 2005); Letter from 
USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Peggie Abadie, New Orleans Public Schools (dated Dec. 12, 2006); Letter 
from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Karen Lesher, Northeast Arizona Technological Institute of 
Vocational Education (dated Aug. 15, 2006); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Ian Poellet, 
Portland Public Schools (dated Sept. 20, 2006); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Vilma Garza, 
Rio Grande City Consolidated School District (dated Apr. 24, 2007).
16 Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Kathy Jones, Approach Learning and Assessment Centers 
(dated Mar. 26, 2007); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Richard Larson, eRate Consulting 
Services, LLC, on behalf of Brevard County School District (dated Dec. 19, 2006) (Brevard Administrator’s 
Decision Letter); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to F. Russell Doupnik, Charleston County 
School District (dated Aug. 30, 2007); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Dan Riorden, 
Hoboken School District (dated Aug. 29, 2006); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to David 
Marson, Division of Juvenile Justice California Education Authority (dated Aug. 15, 2006); Letter from USAC, 
Schools and Libraries Division, to Mark E. Pierce, Leeds City School District (dated Feb. 2, 2007); Letter from 
USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to David Young, Los Fresnos Consolidated Independent School District 
(dated Aug. 15, 2006); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Karen Lesher, Northeast Arizona 
Technological Institute of Vocational Education (dated Dec. 5, 2006); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries 
Division, to Ian Poellet, Portland Public Schools (dated Feb. 5, 2007); Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries 
Division, to Brad Rohrbach, Strathmore Union Elementary School District (dated Aug. 15, 2006).
17 See Appendix.
18 Additionally, nothing in this order is intended: (1) to authorize or require payment of any claim that previously 
may have been released by a service provider or applicant, including in a civil settlement or plea agreement with the 
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2380 
4
determine whether the disbursement of universal service funds would be consistent with program 
requirements, Commission rules and orders, or applicable statutes and to decline to disburse funds where 
this standard is not met.  To ensure that the underlying applications are resolved expeditiously, we direct 
USAC to complete its review of the applications and issue a decision based on a complete review and
analysis no later than 90 calendar days from release of this order.19 We emphasize that the actions taken 
in this order should have minimal effect on the overall federal Universal Service Fund because the monies 
needed to fund these appeals have already been collected and held in reserve.20  
7. Nine of the petitioners–Approach Learning and Assessment Centers (Approach Learning), 
Charleston County School District (Charleston), Hoboken School District (Hoboken), Division of 
Juvenile Justice California Education Authority (Juvenile Justice), Los Fresnos Consolidated Independent 
School District (Los Fresnos), Northeast Arizona Technological Institute of Vocational Education 
(NATIVE), Portland Public Schools (Portland), Rio Grande City Consolidated School District (Rio 
Grande), and Strathmore Union Elementary School District (Strathmore)–contend that the documents 
issued to service providers were not RFPs or did not meet state RFP requirements.21 Some of these 
petitioners argue that the documents provided to prospective service providers, entitled, for example, 
“Request for Quotes,” “Scope of Work and Guidelines,” and “Description of Services,” were merely a 
restatement of information on their FCC Forms 470 with some additional information about the desired 
services.22 Other petitioners argue that prospective service providers did not need to read any documents 
other than the applicant’s FCC Form 470 in order to prepare bids.23 The petitioners explain that each 
service provider expressing an interest in bidding received additional information regarding the desired 
services.24  
8. After reviewing the record, we find that these nine petitioners complied with the 
Commission’s competitive bidding requirements for the application numbers listed in the appendix, and 
under the circumstances of these cases, it would be inequitable not to provide the requested relief.  
Despite petitioners’ failure to correctly indicate on the Forms 470 whether they had issued an RFP, we 
    
United States; or (2) to authorize or require payment to any person or entity that has been debarred from 
participation in the E-rate program.
19 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.
20 We estimate that granting the appeals with respect to the application numbers listed in the appendix involves 
approximately $10.2 million in funding for Funding Years 2005-2007.   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 Fourth Quarter 2008 (Aug. 1, 2008).  Thus, we 
determine that the action we take today should have minimal impact on the Universal Service Fund as a whole.
21 See Approach Learning Request for Review at 1; Charleston Request for Review at 3-5; Hoboken Request for 
Review at 2; Juvenile Justice Request for Review at 2-3; Los Fresnos Request for Review at 2; NATIVE Request for 
Review at 5; Portland Request for Review at 3; Rio Grande Request for Review at 5; Strathmore Request for 
Review at 2. 
22 See Charleston Request for Review at 3-4; Hoboken Request for Review at 2; Los Fresnos Request for Review at 
1; NATIVE Request for Review at 4; Portland Request for Review at 2-3; Strathmore Request for Review at 2.
23 See Hoboken Request for Review at 2; NATIVE Request for Review at 4; Rio Grande Request for Review at 4; 
Strathmore Request for Review at 2.
24 See Approach Learning Request for Review at 1; Charleston Request for Review at 3-5; Hoboken Request for 
Review at 2; Juvenile Justice Request for Review at 2; Los Fresnos Request for Review at 2; NATIVE Request for 
Review at 4; Portland Request for Review at 3; Rio Grande Request for Review at 4.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2380 
5
find that all bidders were on a level playing field.  The petitioners’ FCC Forms 470 contained enough 
detail for service providers to identify the desired services and to formulate bids, and it appears that all 
interested bidders also had access to whatever additional information petitioners provided in the auxiliary 
documents.  Thus, we conclude that rejecting the identified applications on the ground that the petitioners 
failed to advise bidders that an RFP existed is not warranted in these instances.  In addition, we find that 
there was no actual harm to the competitive bidding process.  We thus grant the petitioners’ appeals and 
remand the applications listed in the appendix to USAC for further processing.25
9. In the case of Brevard County School District (Brevard), USAC determined that a 
document entitled “Student E-mail RFP” provided by a Brevard employee during the selective review 
process should have been identified on Brevard’s FCC Form 470.26 USAC concluded that by failing to 
advise bidders that the RFP was issued, Brevard undermined the framework of the competitive bidding 
process.27 In its appeal, Brevard states that the submission of the “Student E-mail RFP” was in error 
because the document was only a draft proposal and was never made public.28 As proof of this assertion, 
Brevard provides written statements by Brevard’s Manager of Educational Training and Customer 
Support and by Brevard’s Director of Purchasing and Warehouse Services attesting that the document 
was a draft proposal that was never released to the public and that no other RFP or similar document was 
prepared or issued to the public concerning the services at issue.29 After reviewing the record, we find that 
Brevard complied with the Commission’s competitive bidding requirements because it did not have an 
RFP available for public inspection and therefore it did not need to indicate on its FCC Form 470 that 
there was an RFP available. We therefore grant Brevard’s appeal and remand its application to USAC for 
further processing.
10. USAC also denied Leeds’s request for funding because Leeds failed to provide USAC with 
a valid RFP during the selective review process.30 Leeds states that it failed to provide a copy of the RFP 
because it misunderstood USAC’s request for information and, as a result, provided copies of responses 
to the RFP rather than the RFP itself.31 The record shows that an RFP was available for service providers 
to review when Leeds posted its FCC Form 470 requesting bids for the services at issue.32 Specifically, 
we find that Leeds prepared its RFP in December 2004, one month before it posted its FCC Form 470.33  
In addition, the record shows that Leeds received four proposals in response to the RFP.34 Because it 
appears that Leeds otherwise conducted a fair competitive bidding process, we grant its appeal and 
remand the underlying application to USAC for further processing.
  
25 See Appendix.  
26 See Brevard Administrator’s Decision Letter.
27 Id.
28 Brevard Request for Review at 1.
29 Id. at Attachments 7 and 8.
30 See Letter from USAC, Schools and Libraries Division, to Mark E. Pierce, Leeds City School District (dated Feb. 
2, 2007).
31 See Leeds Request for Review at 2-3.
32 Id. at Exhibit D.
33 Id; see also Leeds FCC Form 470.
34 See Leeds Request for Review at Exhibit D. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2380 
6
11. Lastly, with regard to New Orleans, the record shows that the FCC Form 470 at issue 
sought vendor proposals for local and long distance telecommunications service.35 New Orleans states 
that although it indicated on its FCC Form 470 that there was no RFP, there actually was an RFP that 
covered the provision of the requested telecommunications services.36 That RFP, entitled “Specifications 
for Infrastructure Technology Integration Provider,” was identified on another FCC Form 470 that 
requested bids for Internet access and internal connections.37 New Orleans states that the latter FCC Form 
470 should have included a request for telecommunications and should have been cited on the funding 
request numbers (FRNs) at issue.38 New Orleans explains that this omission was an honest mistake by a 
New Orleans employee under considerable stress due to Hurricane Katrina.39 Cox Communications and 
BellSouth submitted bids in response to the RFP, and ultimately, New Orleans selected Cox 
Communications to continue to provide the requested services.40
12. Based on the facts and extenuating circumstances of this specific case, including an 
employee who made an honest mistake under the stress of a natural disaster of historic proportions, and 
the absence at this time of any evidence of waste, fraud or abuse, we grant New Orleans’s appeal.  
Although New Orleans should have indicated on its FCC Form 470 that there was an RFP available for 
the desired telecommunications services, we find that there was no harm to the competitive bidding 
process because the two companies that submitted bids received New Orleans’s RFP.41  We therefore 
grant New Orleans’s appeal and remand the underlying applications to USAC for further processing. 
13. We emphasize the limited nature of these decisions.  The Commission’s competitive 
bidding rules serve as a central tenet of the E-rate program.  They ensure more efficient pricing for 
telecommunications and information services purchased by schools and libraries and help deter waste, 
fraud and abuse.42 Although we grant the subject appeals before us, our action here does not eliminate or 
mitigate any of our competitive bidding requirements or the obligations of participants in the E-rate 
program to comply with the Commission’s rules.
14. 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 the application numbers listed in the appendix, 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 
  
35 New Orleans FCC Form 470.
36 New Orleans Request for Waiver at 1-2.
37 Id. at 2.
38 Id. 
39 Id. 
40 Id. at 3.
41 We note that New Orleans referenced the same FCC Form 470 at issue for its Funding Year 2007 FCC Form 471 
application.  See FCC Form 471, New Orleans Public Schools (filed Feb. 8, 2007) (FCC Form 471 Application 
Number 550299, FRN 1572339).  
42 See Adams County Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 6022, para. 8. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2380 
7
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. 
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
15. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, 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 under 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 Approach Learning and Assessment 
Centers on August 13, 2007, Brevard County School District on February 15, 2007, Charleston County 
School District on October 29, 2007, Hoboken School District on September 25, 2006, Division of 
Juvenile Justice California Education Authority on October 12, 2006, Leeds City School District on 
March 12, 2007, Los Fresnos Consolidated Independent School District on October 16, 2006, New 
Orleans Public Schools on February 9, 2007, Northeast Arizona Technological Institute of Vocational 
Education on January 24, 2007, Portland Public Schools on April 9, 2007, Rio Grande City Consolidated 
School District on May 30, 2007, and Strathmore Union Elementary School District on August 29, 2006, 
ARE GRANTED with respect to the application numbers listed in the appendix and REMANDED to 
USAC for further consideration in accordance with the terms of this order.
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1-4 and 254 
of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-154 and 254, and pursuant to the authority 
delegated under 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 Universal Service Administrative Company SHALL COMPLETE its review of the 
remanded applications and ISSUE an award or a denial based on a complete review and analysis no later 
than 90 calendar days from the release of this order. 
17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority delegated under sections 0.91, 
0.291 and 1.102 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.102, this order SHALL BE 
EFFECTIVE upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Jennifer K. McKee
Acting Chief
Telecommunications Access Policy Division
Wireline Competition Bureau
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-2380 
8
APPENDIX
Applicant Application        
Number
Funding
Request Number(s)
Funding
Year
Approach Learning and Assessment 
Centers
Santa Ana, CA
506121 1391000
1391002
1466639
2006
Brevard County School District
Viera, FL
494220 1382385 2006
Charleston County School District
Charleston, SC 
494054 1429328
1429353
1429359
2006
Hoboken School District
Hoboken, NJ
472160 1300717
1300788
1300807
1302637
1344875
2005
Division of Juvenile Justice California Education 
Authority
Sacremento, CA
461261 All FRNs 2005
Leeds City School District
Leeds, AL
515349 1417968 2006
Los Fresnos Consolidated Independent School 
District
Los Fresnos, TX
482490
460009
1336058
1327365
1327694
1328210
2005
New Orleans Public Schools
New Orleans, LA
517092
550299
1443616
1572339
2006
2007
Northeast Arizona Technological Institute of 
Vocational Education
Kayenta, AZ
507313 All FRNs 2006
Portland Public Schools
Portland, OR
449002
478450
All FRNs 2005
Rio Grande City Consolidated School District
Rio Grande City, TX 
523659
524550
526314
526456
All FRNs 2006
Strathmore Union Elementary School District
Strathmore, CA
460299 1285820
1285827
1285833
2005