E-Rate Bloopers

As the E-Rate program has matured, the filing process has become increasingly complex. Below are some real-life examples of how easy it is to lose millions of funding dollars due to one simple mistake. The Trillion Team is here to walk you through every step of the process after it is awarded a bid so this doesn’t happen to your school district. Although the FCC has issued its "Bishop-Perry Order" which attempts to reduce the number of E-Rate denials based on clerical errors by well-meaning school districts, the following war stories from before that order are still instructive about how tricky the process can be. 

E-Rate Bloopers

• A school district employee printed her signature page for their Form 471, and accidentally wrote the wrong date next to her signature (she put a date in that was a few days earlier than the actual day she signed). The contract had actually been signed that day and all of the E-Rate rules had been followed. The SLD said the contract violated the 28 day waiting period – even though the contract was properly signed on the 28 th day. The typo on the signature page killed funding for the entire year.
• A Form 471 unintentionally referred to the wrong Form 470, the SLD said the 471 violated the 28 day waiting period because the 470 was filed less than 28 days earlier – even though the correct Form 470 had been filed more than 28 days earlier. The SLD would not allow the school district to change the number to the correct Form 470 and funding was denied for the year.
• A Form 471 listed the service as “Internet Access” for the school district’s WAN, however the Form 470 had used the term “Telecommunications Service,” so the SLD denied funding for the year and wouldn’t let the school district just change it to the correct category that they meant to use.
• A school district completed their Form 471 online and printed their signature page on the last date allowed to file the Form 471. They knew they had to get a postmark date on the envelope for that day, but they lived in a small town where the post office had closed for the day. In order to make it on time, they faxed the signature page to a deputy superintendent who was at an education conference in a bigger town, who promptly signed it, took it to the big city post office which was still open and dropped it in the mail there. The last mail pick up for the mail box he used had already come for the day, the postmark was stamped on it the next day, and they were denied funding for the year.
• The SLD denied funding for a Form 471, claiming the school district had not responded to requests for information. The school district employee who had been handling the matter had retired by the time the denial came around, but he said no one had called him, faxed him, or e-mailed him. The SLD refused to produce records showing who they had tried to contact, when, or how. The school district produced affidavits from everyone who checked the e-mail back ups and phone logs and faxes stating that no such attempts had ever been received. The SLD rejected the information offered and held fast on their denial of funding for the year. The SLD never indicated what information they were requesting in the first place.