Subgrantee selection
How Hawaiʻi chose who builds: fixed project areas, a public rubric, a formula that rewards the lowest ask, and the outcome.
Headline figures
Project areas
4
Receipt
“The State of Hawaiʻi defined four project areas covering the entire state for subgrantee selection: County of Kauaʻi, City and County of Honolulu, County of Maui (inclusive of Kalawao), and County of Hawaiʻi.”
Final Proposal, p.7RFPs in the July 2025 round
8
Receipt
“UHBO released eight new RFPs in July 2025, as part of the final “Benefit of the Bargain” Round mandated by the new federal guidance.”
Final Proposal, p.7Proposals per project area, unserved and underserved RFPs
4
Receipt
“UHBO received four proposals for each project area for all unserved and underserved RFPs.”
Final Proposal, p.30Preliminary awards
Hawaiian Telcom (fiber) · Amazon Leo (LEO satellite)
Receipt
“The University of Hawaiʻi Broadband Office (UHBO) made preliminary awards to two telecommunications companies, Hawaiian Telcom and Amazon Leo, a low-earth orbit satellite provider, following a competitive RFP process.”
Lt. Governor release, Dec 23 2025, p.1Timeline
Proposals due
August 1, 2025
Proposal review
August 2 to 4, 2025
Preliminary award
August 5, 2025
Final Proposal approved by NTIA
November 18, 2025
Receipt
“Hawaiʻi received NTIA approval of its Final Proposal on November 18, 2025.”
UHBO Final Proposal page, p.1How points were awarded
Scoring criteria, unserved and underserved RFPs
| Minimal BEAD Program Outlay (primary) | 200 | |
|---|---|---|
| Speed to Deployment (secondary) | 30 | |
| Speed of Network and Other Technical Capabilities (secondary) | 15 |
Rows sum to 245, the stated total.
Receipts (3)
- Minimal BEAD Program Outlay (primary)“Minimal BEAD Program Outlay 200”Final Proposal, p.25
- Speed to Deployment (secondary)“Speed to Deployment 30”Final Proposal, p.25
- Speed of Network and Other Technical Capabilities (secondary)“Speed of Network and Other Technical Capabilities 15”Final Proposal, p.25
Scoring criteria, CAI RFPs
| Minimal BEAD Program Outlay (primary) | 200 | |
|---|---|---|
| Speed to Deployment (secondary) | 30 | |
| Speed of Network and Other Technical Capabilities (secondary) | 10 |
Rows sum to 240, the stated total.
Receipts (3)
- Minimal BEAD Program Outlay (primary)“Minimal BEAD Program Outlay 200”Final Proposal, p.28
- Speed to Deployment (secondary)“Speed to Deployment 30”Final Proposal, p.28
- Speed of Network and Other Technical Capabilities (secondary)“Speed of Network and Other Technical Capabilities 10”Final Proposal, p.28
Speed of Network and Other Technical Capabilities, unserved and underserved RFPs
| Max speed and latency | 5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Longevity (useful life) | 5 | |
| Cost-effectiveness of future scalability | 5 |
Rows sum to 15.
Receipts (3)
- Max speed and latency“Max speed and latency for unserved and underserved locations: Maximum score - 5 points”Final Proposal, p.27
- Longevity (useful life)“Longevity: Maximum score - 5 points”Final Proposal, p.27
- Cost-effectiveness of future scalability“Cost-effectiveness of Future Scalability: Maximum score - 5 points”Final Proposal, p.27
Run the published formula
Computed here from the formulas on Final Proposal pages 25 to 26, starting from the document's own examples. These are illustrations of the rubric, not figures about Hawaiʻi's actual bids, which are not public.
| Offeror | Requested ($M) | Cost per BSL ($k) | Months | Part 1Formula“The points allocated to bidders with larger amounts will be equal to the lowest amount, multiplied by the maximum points for Part 1, and then divided by the larger amount.” Final Proposal, p.25 | Part 2Formula“The points allocated to bidders with lower amounts of cost per location will be equal to the lower amount, multiplied by the maximum points for Part 2, and then divided by the largest amount.” Final Proposal, p.26 | Outlay | SpeedFormula“forty-eight (48) minus the Offeror’s proposed number of months to complete the deployment, then divided by forty-eight (48), then multiplied by the maximum number of points.” Final Proposal, p.26 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Offeror A | 100 | 50 | 150 | 7.5 | |||
| Offeror B | 80 | 100 | 180 | 11.25 | |||
| Offeror C | 57.1 | 66.7 | 123.8 | 15 |
Not computed: the 15 percent rule that decides whether secondary criteria apply, and the technical sub-scores, which the review committee judged.
Worked examples (12)
- part1-A“Offeror A Requested: $20m (lowest amount) = Awarded 100 points”Final Proposal, p.25
- part1-B“Offeror B Requested: $25m (higher) = 100 x (20/25) = Awarded 80 points”Final Proposal, p.26
- part1-C“Offeror C Requested: $35m (higher) = 100 x (20/35) = Awarded 57.1 points”Final Proposal, p.26
- part2-A“Offeror A cost per BSL: $2k (higher amount) = 100 x (1/2) = Awarded 50 points”Final Proposal, p.26
- part2-B“Offeror B cost per BSL: $1k (lowest amount) = Awarded 100 points”Final Proposal, p.26
- part2-C“Offeror C cost per BSL: $1.5k (higher amount) = 100 x (1/1.5) = Awarded 66.7 points”Final Proposal, p.26
- outlay-A“Offeror A: 100 + 50 = 150 Points”Final Proposal, p.26
- outlay-B“Offeror B: 80 + 100 = 180 Points”Final Proposal, p.26
- outlay-C“Offeror C: 57.1 + 66.7 = 123.8 Points”Final Proposal, p.26
- speed-A“Offeror A: 36 months to complete project = ((48-36)/48) * 30 = Awarded 7.5 points”Final Proposal, p.26
- speed-B“Offeror B: 30 months to complete project = ((48-30)/48) * 30 = Awarded 11.25 points”Final Proposal, p.26
- speed-C“Offeror C: 24 months to complete project = ((48-24)/48) * 30 = Awarded 15 points”Final Proposal, p.26
Outcome
Funded locations by technology, approved Final Proposal
| Fiber-to-the-premises | 5,748 | |
|---|---|---|
| Low Earth Orbit satellite | 1,285 |
Rows sum to 7,033, the stated total.
Receipts (2)
- Fiber-to-the-premises“Premises 5,748 81.7%”NTIA Final Proposal Overview, p.1
- Low Earth Orbit satellite“Satellite 1,285 18.3%”NTIA Final Proposal Overview, p.1
How the process was run
- Review committee“The review committee consisted of five (5) members including the director of the state BEAD program, two (2) technical reviewers with experience in the telecommunications industry, and two (2) broadband specialists.”Final Proposal, p.9
- Conflicts of interest“To ensure fairness, prior to scoring, the review committee was required to disclose any current financial, equity, role-based, or intellectual property conflict of interests (COI).”Final Proposal, p.9
- No collusion“During the RFP process, Offerors were required to acknowledge in writing that there was no collusion amongst providers, consistent with the Federal Communications Commission’s prohibited communications rules for auction.”Final Proposal, p.9
- Public criteria“All scoring criteria used were publicly available.”Final Proposal, p.10
- Technology neutral“the scoring rubric was designed to be as objective as possible and technology neutral”Final Proposal, p.9
- Fixed project areas“Offerors were not able to define their own project areas.”Final Proposal, p.7
- Disqualification“For unserved and underserved RFPs, one proposal was disqualified for not meeting the minimum qualifications.”Final Proposal, p.30
- Priority and non-priority“Of the remaining three qualifying proposals, one was determined to be a priority broadband project, and the other two were determined to be non-priority broadband projects.”Final Proposal, p.30
- Priority project awarded“Since there were no other priority broadband project proposals, the one priority broadband project proposal was awarded.”Final Proposal, p.30
- Non-priority scoring“For the non-priority projects, there were no proposals that were within the 15% cost threshold, so the Minimal BEAD Program Outlay was the only applicable criteria used in the scoring and selection of the non-priority unserved and underserved proposals.”Final Proposal, p.30
- CAI RFPs“UHBO received two proposals for each project area for all CAI RFPs.”Final Proposal, p.30
- CAI disqualification“For CAI RFPs, one proposal was disqualified for not meeting the minimum qualifications.”Final Proposal, p.30
- Performance periods“The contracted performance period is four years for Hawaiian Telecom; 10 years for Amazon Leo.”Lt. Governor release, Dec 23 2025, p.1
Formulas and rules
| Rule | Text | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Part 1: requested BEAD funding | “The prospective subgrantee that requests the LOWEST amount of requested BEAD funding will receive the maximum score.” | Final Proposal, p.25 |
| Part 1 formula | “The points allocated to bidders with larger amounts will be equal to the lowest amount, multiplied by the maximum points for Part 1, and then divided by the larger amount.” | Final Proposal, p.25 |
| Part 2: cost per location | “The prospective subgrantee that offers the LOWEST amount of BEAD funding per broadband serviceable location (BSL) in the project area will receive the maximum score.” | Final Proposal, p.26 |
| Part 2 formula | “The points allocated to bidders with lower amounts of cost per location will be equal to the lower amount, multiplied by the maximum points for Part 2, and then divided by the largest amount.” | Final Proposal, p.26 |
| 15 percent rule | “If proposals had project costs within 15 percent of the lowest cost proposal, the secondary criteria were used for all proposals.” | Final Proposal, p.26 |
| Speed to Deployment formula | “forty-eight (48) minus the Offeror’s proposed number of months to complete the deployment, then divided by forty-eight (48), then multiplied by the maximum number of points.” | Final Proposal, p.26 |
| Max speed and latency tiers | “100 Mbps download / 20 Mbps upload & less than 100ms 1 points 100 Mbps download / 50+ Mbps upload & less than 100ms 2 points 250 Mbps download / 50+ Mbps upload & less than 100ms 3 points 500 Mbps download / 100+ Mbps upload & less than 100ms 4 points 1000 Mbps download / 500+ Mbps upload & less than 100ms 5 points” | Final Proposal, p.27 |
| Longevity | “Life spans of 15 years or greater will receive the maximum number of points; life spans shorter than 15 years will receive a prorated amount.” | Final Proposal, p.27 |
| Scalability | “Proposals that are very effective will receive the maximum score of 5 points. Proposals that are less effective will receive fewer points.” | Final Proposal, p.27 |
| CAI difference | “A similar approach was taken for the CAI RFP process, with the exception of removing the “max speed and latency” points for the Speed of Network and Other Technical Capabilities criteria, as the speed requirements were a minimum of 1 Gbps symmetrical.” | Final Proposal, p.27 |
Ask
0/300