FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 3, Pages 1878 to 2785, February 21 - March 16, 2012 Page: 1,892
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
13. Third, Port Authority alleges that it "continued to proceed with performing the work that was
necessary to reband its emergency public safety frequencies so that the work could be completed in a
timely and cost-efficient manner while not jeopardizing the public safety."27
14. Fourth, Port Authority claims it "was constantly checking its vendors' work to make sure
their vendors did the work in an efficient manner at the lowest possible cost without jeopardizing the
safety of the users of the Port Authority's facilities."28
15. Fifth, Port Authority claims that "[mIany of these additional costs were incurred due to
events that occurred after the FRA was executed or due to conditions that could only be discovered after
the work was commenced.''29
16. Sixth, Port Authority argues that the EDACS split and associated tasks were necessary to
ensure that "comparable facilities" would exist during rebanding.?
17. Sprint 's Contentions. Sprint argues that Port Authority cannot ignore its FRA and other
rebanding program obligations." Sprint first contends that "simply because [Sprint] agreed to execute the
FRA with an agreement that the parties would later review the two-phased approach costs, once
developed, does not make the Port [Authority's] broad over-assumption, that any and all costs the Port
already had and thereafter continued to accrue should be held indefinitely, valid."32
18. Second, Sprint concedes that "'[g]iven the urgency with which the Port [Authority] wanted to
complete the project, and given that the two-phased approach did need development, it was
understandable that Nextel agreed to review the anticipated, future proposed costs of the two-phased
approach in a Change Notice, while moving forward to sign the FRA so that the implementation of the
reconfiguration could commence.'"
19. Third, Sprint argues that "[i]t was the Port that never presented these costs (and all the other
costs still in dispute) for review until it completed its project, even while assuring Nextel that its FRA cost
estimates were valid except for the need to account for the two-phased approach."34
27 Port Authority PRM at 6.
28 Port Authority Reply PRM at iii.
29 Port Authority PRM at 5.
0o Port Authority Reply at 8-1 1.
3 Proposed Resolution of Nextel Communications, Inc.. TAM-50077 at 11-12 (Sprint PRM).
32 Reply of Nextel Communications, Inc.. to the Proposed Resolution Memorandum of Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey. TAM-50077 at 9 (Sprint Reply). Sprint concurs with Port Authority's assertion that Sprint "agreed
to pay the reasonable additional costs of the two phased frequency approach. but it is plain that only a relatively
small portion of the additional costs relate to what the parties acknowledge was a necessary change in project
implementation due to spectrum constraints in the New York City area - specifically the need for two rather than
one touch to the Port's infrastructure." Sprint PRM at i. Sprint adds that Port Authority's Change Notice "relates
only tangentially to a known and agreed upon deviation from the original single phase frequency approach to a two
phased frequency approach." Sprint PRM at ii. Sprint contends that the "disputed costs for which the Port seeks
recovery represent unaccountably excessive Project Management and Engineering hours that Nextel would never
have agreed to if they had been presented for review prior to the work having been done." Id. at ii-iii.
n Sprint Reply at 10 (emphasis in original).
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 27, No. 3, Pages 1878 to 2785, February 21 - March 16, 2012, book, March 2012; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc94252/m1/33/: accessed July 27, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.