FCDL Comment:
MR1: The Contract Award Date was changed from 2/12/2009 to 2/7/2009 to agree with the applicant documentation. <><><><><> MR2: The Contract Expiration Date was changed from 9/30/2010 to 6/30/2010 to agree with the applicant documentation. <><><><><> DR1: The applicant informed Selective Review that vendor selection was not performed because only one bid was received, and that the RFP was provided to all prospective qualified prospective vendors. However, this is in conflict with the applicant's responses to Special Compliance Review, specifically, the applicant stated that: competitive bidding isn't required when using CMAS; prospective bidders? requests for the RFP were disregarded by the district; and that the only service provider to receive the RFP was the incumbent provider. Using a State Master Contract does not exempt applicants from complying with the FCC?s Competitive Bid Requirements. While the entity may disqualify non-CMAS vendors, applicants are nonetheless required to document why they selected a specific provider from a State Master Contract multiple award schedule and perform a bid process between approved vendors to determine which provider is the most cost-effective. Additionally, documentation in USAC files shows that a CMAS-approved vendor contacted the entity multiple times requesting its RFP, which was not provided. Therefore, the FRN is denied.