FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,070
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
II. Indiana further claims, again for the first time, that, because a Sprint employee is an
EWA board member, EWA produced a "bogus" licensing services proposal that is either a "sweetheart
deal" or a "negotiating ploy" that "resounds in bad faith,"2' and "undermines the credibility of the EWA
quote."22 With but a modicum of diligence, Indiana could have ascertained that the Sprint employee was
an EWA board member,23 and raised that allegation in its Statement of Position. It failed to do so.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, we disregard Indiana's "conspiracy
theory." In any event, we find that the allegation of collusion between Sprint and EWA to be wholly
12. Similarly, we decline to consider the February 15, 2011 letter to Sandra Black, EMR's
president, from David C. Smith, Executive Director of Integrated Public Safety Communications.2? The
author of the letter claims that EWA is unqualified to provide licensing services, inter alia because of the
alleged conflict of interest arising from a Sprint employee sitting on EWA's board. Once again, Indiana
is attempting to introduce new evidence in a petition for reconsideration without demonstrating why it
could not have, with diligence, introduced the evidence sooner.
13. We also reject, on procedural grounds, Indiana's introducing a quote for licensing
services from the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, International (APCO). S
Indiana claims the higher APCO quote is evidence that the quote from its vendor, EMR, meets the
minimum necessary cost standard.?6 Again, Indiana attempts to "parry with an offer of more evidence" in
a petition for reconsideration. With the exercise of ordinary diligence, Indiana could have obtained the
APCO quote in sufficient time to include it in its Statement of Position.
14. Indiana repeats in its Petition, an argument it made in its Statement of Position, i.e., that
EMR's initial $200,200 quote comports with the minimum necessary cost standard because it represents
EMR's standard billing rate, which Sprint had accepted before in other rebanding projects.2? That
argument was considered and disposed of in the Indiana Order where the Bureau concluded: "The fact
that the State may previously have paid EMR a comparable price does not establish that EMR's quotes
are reasonable."28s We decline to revisit Indiana's "standard billing rate" argument. As the Commission
has held, "[i]t is well established that the Commission does not grant reconsideration for the purpose of
allowing a petitioner to reargue matters already presented, considered, and disposed of by the
Commission. Otherwise, the Commission 'would be involved in a never-ending process of review that
would frustrate the Commission's ability to conduct its business in an orderly fashion."'29
15. Indiana deems it relevant that Sprint once offered $100,000 for EMR to provide licensing
22 Id. at 9.
23 EWA has 37 board members. See htlp://www.enterprisewireless.org/About/Board.
24 Petition at Attachment 2.
25 Id. at Attachment 4.
261d. at 13.
27 Id. at 11.
28 Indiana Order 26 FCC Rcd at 1032 '33.
29 Warren Price Communications, Inc.. Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 6850 (1992). See Improving
Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band - New 800 MHz Band Plan for Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands, Third Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC Red 4443, 4449
Federal Communications Commission
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011, book, April 2011; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc52169/m1/242/: accessed July 28, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.