******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Request for Review of the ) Decision of the ) Universal Service Administrator by ) ) Ruidoso Municipal School District ) File No. SLD-29924 Ruidoso, New Mexico ) ) Federal-State Joint Board on ) CC Docket No. 96-45 Universal Service ) ) Changes to the Board of Directors of the ) CC Docket No. 97-21 National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. ) order Adopted: January 20, 2000 Released: January 21, 2000 By the Common Carrier Bureau: 1. The Common Carrier Bureau has under consideration a Letter of Appeal filed by Ruidoso Municipal School District (Ruidoso) of Ruidoso, New Mexico on May 6, 1999, seeking review of a decision issued by the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC or Administrator). Ruidoso seeks review of SLD's denial of its application for discounted telecommunications services under the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Letter of Appeal and affirm SLD's denial of Ruidoso's application for discounted services. 2. Under the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism, eligible schools, libraries, and consortia that include eligible schools and libraries, may apply for discounts for eligible telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal connections. The Commission's rules provide that, with one limited exception for existing, binding contracts, an eligible school, library or consortium must seek competitive bids for all services eligible for support. In accordance with the Commission's rules, SLD posts an applicant's FCC Form 470 specifying requested services on its web site for 28 days prior to the applicant's signing a contract for eligible services and submitting its FCC Form 471. 3. Based on Ruidoso's FCC Form 471, SLD determined that, although Ruidoso had pre- existing contracts for some requested services that exempted it from the competitive bidding requirement, it also had ordered other telecommunications services pursuant to tariffs. Accordingly, by letter dated February 18, 1999, SLD granted discounts for those requests that were based on pre-existing contracts, but denied the request for discounts for tariffed telecommunications services on the ground that the request for these services was not posted on SLD's web site for 28 days, in violation of the Commission's competitive bidding requirement. 4. On April 9, 1999, SLD affirmed its initial funding decision and denied Ruidoso's appeal. SLD explained that Ruidoso's request for tariffed telecommunications services was not posted on the web site for 28 days because Ruidoso had checked Item 10 in Block 3 on FCC Form 470, which directs the applicant to check the box if the applicant seeks discounts only for eligible services based on an existing, binding contract. SLD further explained that tariffed telecommunications services are required to be posted to the SLD web site for 28 days (pursuant to the FCC Form 470 Instructions) in order to give service providers an opportunity to bid on these services. As stated by SLD, the only exemption from the Commission's competitive bidding requirement is for services that were the subject of a legal, binding contract that was signed and dated by both parties prior to January 30, 1998. 5. In Ruidoso's Letter of Appeal that is now before us, Ruidoso asserts that SLD has admitted to poor quality of technical assistance; that, in fact, Ruidoso received incorrect technical assistance; and that it should not suffer loss of funding as a result. 6. Having reviewed the record before us, we have confirmed that Ruidoso's FCC Form 471 indicates in Item 15 that it would receive the telecommunications services in question pursuant to tariff, not a pre-existing contract. We also have confirmed that Ruidoso checked Item 10 in Block 3 of its FCC Form 470 indicating that it had only "pre-existing contracts," even though its request included tariffed services as well. Therefore, consistent with the Commission's rules, SLD did not post Ruidoso's FCC Form 470 on its web site. Although it is unfortunate that Ruidoso understood SLD staff to provide verbal assurances that its FCC Form 470 was "correct for its situation," this is not a basis for us to grant relief that would be contrary to the Commission's rules. Both the separate written instructions for Item (10) and bold face words of instruction on Item (10) of the FCC Form 470 itself clearly state that the box should be checked only if the applicant seeks discounts for eligible services based on one or more existing, binding contract(s). Only applicants with existing contracts, as defined in section 54.511(c)(1) of the Commission's rules, are exempt from the Commission's competitive bidding requirement. That rule defines pre-existing contracts that do not have to be posted on the web site for competitive bidding as those signed after July 10, 1997 but prior to January 30, 1998, the date upon which the SLD web site became operational. Thus, the tariffed services in question were not subject to "pre- existing contracts," and SLD properly denied Ruidoso's funding requests for those tariffed services for failure to comply with the 28-day competitive bidding requirement. 7. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 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 appeal filed by Ruidoso Municipal School District, Ruidoso, New Mexico on May 6, 1999 IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lawrence E. Strickling Chief, Common Carrier Bureau