FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,071
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Communications Commission
services, but withdrew the offer when Indiana did not accept it. Sprint later found that EWA would
provide licensing services for $51,590. The $100,000 withdrawn offer, Indiana claims, establishes the
minimum necessary cost for licensing services.30
16. We disagree with Indiana's contention that Sprint's $100,000 offer set the "floor" for
licensing services. Indiana had rejected the offer and Sprint located a lower-cost vendor. In so doing,
Sprint followed the Commission's directive that "Sprint should not propose to pay and the TA should not
approve payment of higher costs when a lower-cost alternative is clearly available that would provide the
licensee with comparable facilities.""' In any event, offers made in negotiation and mediation are often
withdrawn as circumstances change, and we are unwilling to conclude that an offer, not accepted, is
relevant to a determination of whether a service is being provided at the minimum necessary cost.
17. Indiana's claim that the Bureau has usurped Indiana's right to select its own vendor,32
repeats arguments from its Statement of Position and contests a matter settled in the Indiana Order where
the Bureau explained:
We do not, however, require Indiana to use EWA or any similar
provider. We hold only that EMR's initial $200,200 quote and its later
$100,000 quote are excessive as evidenced by the fact that EWA would
do the work for a little more than one-half the price quoted by EMR.33 *
* * If the State wishes to use EMR to enter the data necessary to modify
its licenses, it may do so. We hold only that Sprint's responsibility for
that work is limited to $51,590.3
Precedent establishes that Indiana may not use a petition for reconsideration "merely for the purpose of
again debating matters on which the tribunal has once deliberated and spoken.'"" We therefore disregard
Indiana's reprised arguments about usurpation of its right to a vendor. On the same basis, we disregard
Indiana's argument - previously made in its Statement of Position - that Sprint treats Motorola
differently than it has treated EMR in this proceeding.36
18. Indiana accuses the TA Mediator of bias because he at first encouraged Indiana to accept
Sprint's counteroffer of $100,000 for licensing services and then "reversed hisposition and found the
EWA quote to be the appropriate basis for setting the value of those services."3 Indiana faults the Bureau
for not addressing, in the Indiana Order, "the obvious implication of bias that is revealed by that
30 Petition at 11-12.
31 Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd
9818, 9821 (2007).
32 Petition at 13-15.
33 Indiana Order 26 FCC Rcd at 1032 33.
35 WWIZ, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), aff'd sub nom. Lorain Journal Company
v. FCC 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 967 (1966).
36 Petition at 14-15.
71d. at 12, n.16.
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/m1/243/: accessed July 21, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.