Unpacking Approved BEAD Volume 2s: Connecticut

BEAD
funding
Author

Michael Santorelli

Published

July 20, 2024

NTIA recently approved Connecticut’s BEAD Initial Proposal Volume 2 (V2). The ACLP has compared the final version with the version that the state released for public comment last fall (it did not publicly release any subsequent versions). A redlined comparison is available here. The following major changes were evident:

Subgrantee Selection Process

Benchmark Pricing

The state will now use a benchmark price for each PA when assigning scores for Minimal BEAD Outlay.

Scoring - Minimal Bead Outlay

The state reduced the number of points in this category from 45 to 40 and will assign points based on a comparison of the proposal to its benchmark price for the PA (up to 30pts) and consideration of the proposed match percentage (up to 10pts). Max pts will go to proposals that are 80% or more below the benchmark price and that have a 50%+ match.

Scoring - Affordability

The state modified several aspects of this category. Rather than setting a price that applicants must match, the state requires applicants to commit to setting the price of BEAD service at the same level as similar service elsewhere in the state (the state removed reference to “surrounding states”). In addition, the final V2 includes additional obligations to receive max points, notably that the pricing commitments is for at least 10 years, includes all fees, and is available “with no restrictions.”

Scoring - Fair Labor Practices

The state increased the number of points available in this category from 15 to 20. Consistent with other states, it will award up to 10pts in two categories: (1) for past compliance with relevant laws and (2) commitments to future compliance. New entrants will get points in the first category for making future com

Scoring - Secondary Criteria - Areas of High Poverty

The state removed mention of basing points on the percentage of high poverty areas in a PA. Instead, the state will award up to 10pts “for inclusion in the proposed [PA] of unserved locations found in areas of high poverty.”

Low-Cost Option

The state made the following changes to the option’s parameters:

  • Clarified that “directly government-imposed taxes and fees” are to be included in the calculation of the low-cost option.
  • Widened availability of the option to “households with income equal or below 200 percent of the federal poverty line.” Initially, it was 130%.
  • The state retained its waiver option, allowing applicants to request an increase in the price of the low-cost option to $50/month upon a showing that $30/month is cost prohibitive.