FRN Narrative/General
The FRN narrative states: Request for Internet Access +Telephone Sales Tax + Universal Connectivity Charge.
Which of these charges are ineligible and need to be removed from the funding request?
Telephone Sales Tax
Ineligible products/services were identified and removed from the FRN. Which FCDL will be inserted? (Provide unique #)
<F3.76 - Ineligible Products/Services removed> The amount of the funding request was changed from $xx.xx to $xx.xx to remove the ineligible product(s) or service(s): <Insert Ineligible product or service>.
Review of these exceptions are waived for Category One applications requesting less than $50,000 Pre-Discount EXCEPT:
Ex 12
Ex 33
Ex 35
Ex 9
Ex 9
The applicant requests for 500 Mbps on the FRN. However, vendor documentation indicates 300 Mbps. What 4 steps must the reviewer do to clear this exception?
-Modify the speed to 300 Mbps.
-Send a modification notification.
-Insert a FRN FCDL.
-Insert review note making note of the modification performed.
Exception 7 triggers for FY2023 discount revalidation. The reviewer must begin their review indicating the following:
“FY 2023 discount revalidation completed."
If the line item was created as a switch but the vendor documentation/service matrix lists it as a module, how will the reviewer move forward with this review?
The service type should be modified to module
During review of ex 17A, the FRN was reduced in order to bring the entity within budget. Please read out loud the FCDL that will be inserted under ex 5.
The funding request amount was reduced from $xx.xx to $xx.xx to remove the amount that exceeded the Category Two budget set for the following entity(ies): <insert BEN(s) and BEN Name(s)>
If an entity cannot be validated as a NIF on the pdf version of the FCC Form 471, what is another way a NIF can be identified. (Name at least one)
A NIF can also be identified by the following:
Reviewing documentation to support the requested 7CEP percentage:
In some states, the base year is also identified as the ____ ____.
"Cycle Year"
What is missing from this review note:
The applicant requests for MIBS Managed by a third party service provider, and purchased from them or other vendors with a total eligible cost of $30,000. The request is supported by Contract ID 427512. No ineligibles identified. Exception cleared.
The funding decision: "Approved"
The applicant has indicated the following FRN Narrative on each FRN for FY2023:
FRN A: 25 Mbps x 10 Mbps Internet for Maxine Library (month of June)
FRN B: 25 Mbos X 10 Mbps Internet for Maxine Library (July to May)
List the specific dates the reviewer will modify FRNs A and B given the provided information
FRN A: June 1, 2024 - June 30, 2024 (1 month of service)
FRN B: July 1, 2023 - May 31, 2024 (11 months of service)
The entity subtype was changed to agree with applicant documentation. Which FCDL will be inserted? (Provide unique #)
<G2.06 - Entity attribute sub-type change> The attribute sub-type for BEN <Insert BEN and name> has been [Choose from the following: <updated to include the following: <insert new attribute sub-type>> or <changed from <insert original attribute> to <insert new attribute> in accordance with the applicant supplied documentation>].
If the “CEP Percentage % CMS” is 46.57% or higher and supporting documentation provided by the applicant validates a higher CMS percentage, how will the reviewer move forward with the review? (What modifications, if any, are needed and what additional information is needed)
No further verification or modification of the requested CEP percentage is needed since the applicant has already been validated at the highest NSLP %. Base year validation will still be necessary.
Category 1 FRN: FRN line .001 has auto-cleared. FRN line item .002 requests for Taxes. There is no existing documentation that supports line .002 and the requests exceeds the 25% threshold. What other source can the reviewer refer to in order to clear line .002?
1Q 2023 Proposed Contribution Factor Percentage (must be checked quarterly)
What is missing from this review note:
Approved. The applicant requests for MIBS Managed services contract of already installed equipment with a total eligible cost of $4,5000. See doc ID 24327 for the list of equipment being supported taken from the applicants response dated XX-X-XX from prior year FRN XX app XX. No ineligibles identified. Exception cleared.
Documentation that supports the requested charges for MIBS
Which of the following falls under a "No-fault return".
a) The applicant responds to a modification notification with supporting documentation and the app is now in Final Review.
b) The multi-year FRN was cleared with missing information cited during the previous year. IR cleared the FRN referring to the same notes from the prior year.
c) Incorrect FCDL was inserted due to a typo on the funding request.
A only
The applicant requested to increase the enrollment of an entity via FRN narrative. Which FCDL will be inserted for this scenario? (Provide unique # associated with the FCDL comment)
<G2.47 - Student enrollment and NSLP count change> The <enrollment/NSLP> for BEN <insert BEN number and Name> was <decreased/increased> from <insert current number of students> to <insert new number of students> students based on <the applicant’s request in the FCC Form 471, FRN Narrative>.
The reviewer modified the service type for several line items on an FRN. What CCT will the reviewer send as the modification notification? (Provide unique #)
5C1CCT.21 - For use to notify the applicant of the modifications to the Funding Requests section of FCC Form 471 application
Upon reviewing the uploaded documentation in the contract profile, the reviewer notices a piece of equipment listed on a quote that matches the cost requested but supports a quantity of 100. The FRN is requesting a quantity of 105. How will the reviewer move forward with this review?
The reviewer will accept the information; modifications are not necessary
The reviewer will cite the information below in their review note:
Ex 7-The reviewer is using a spreadsheet taken from the DoE website. What TWO docs must be uploaded into EPC to support the requested discount?
1) The spreadsheet that verifies the discount.
2) A snapshot of the URL that verifies the sheet was taken from the DoE.
The entire FRN is for BMIC and has auto-cleared. The FRN narrative notes that a specific equipment is only 50% eligible and the MID cannot be determined via Service Matrix. Documentation is not available. How will the reviewer proceed with this review?
-Unclear the FRN.
-Request for vendor doc and escalate MID to services team to confirm the eligibility percentage.
The applicant requested a RAL to cancel a RAL Request. Which FCDL will be inserted? (Provide unique #)
<G2.64 - RAL cancellation> The RAL request for FCC Form 471 Form Application Number <insert Application #> to change <insert what change request is being cancelled> was canceled in consultation with the applicant.
According to FY2023 PIA Training Tip, auto-clearance will not apply if ______ is included in the FRN since vendor documentation review is required.
Firewall
The FRN includes a mix of IC and BMIC as validated by vendor documentation. The charges for BMIC were determined to be for 1 year Maintenance Support. The applicant has listed non-recurring charges. What specific modifications, if any, must be done to the cost for BMIC?
None. If the Maintenance Support Service term only covers one year, the BMIC costs can remain as non-recurring.
The applicant requests for Fiber Maintenance & Operations on the FRN. To clear this FRN, what two supporting items must be included in the review notes?
1) Supporting documentation to clear the requested M&O charges.
2) Existing Dark Fiber or Self Provision Network in place or requested.