FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 3, Pages 1878 to 2785, February 21 - March 16, 2012 Page: 1,899
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
41. Port Authority Position. Port Authority claims that it determined after the FRA was signed
that outdoor coverage testing was insufficient and that indoor coverage testing of all Port Authority
facilities by BAH was required.'"9
42. Sprint Position. Sprint contends that Port Authority fails to explain why it did not foresee the
need for indoor testing when it negotiated the FRA and notes that Port Authority did not seek or obtain
Sprint's prior consent to additional testing."0 Sprint claims that had Port Authority sought such consent,
Sprint would not have approved the "vastly overbroad" testing described in the Port Authority PRM."'
Therefore, Sprint argues, it was "deprived of the opportunity to review the plan for reasonableness of
scale and scope of effort, [and] has not been presented with any cost detail for the additional [BAH] hours
and expenses associated with this additional testing."112
8. BAH Technical Support of Other Vendors
43. Port Authority Position. Port Authority contends that it:
incurred additional costs since it had to pay BAH to provide technical
engineering support and oversight to vendors that, contrary to what was
reasonable to assume, did not have the equipment nor the expertise
concerning how to replace the equipment already installed at the various
Port Authority facilities with equipment in the new frequency band, as
well as vendors who did not possess the technical knowledge regarding
the new equipment interfaces and installation conditions at the
44. Sprint Position. Sprint contends that it should not be held financially responsible for BAH
providing technical support to unqualified vendors that Port Authority itself selected."4 Further, Sprint
observes that Port Authority stated during project review that "it cannot provide any quantification or
documentation of this [BAH] engineering and technical support function.""' Therefore, Sprint argues, "it
is impossible to credit this vast, undifferentiated lump of tech support nominally provided by [BAH] to
make up for the purported shortcomings of other vendors."''"6
C. Bad Faith Allegations
45. Port Authority Position. Port Authority alleges that Sprint failed to negotiate in good faith."7
For example, Port Authority contends that Sprint did not make a good faith effort to support its claim that
M/A-COM and BAH expended unreasonable amounts of time in producing the Detailed Task Plan. Port
'09 Port Authority PRM at 14.
10 Sprint PRM at 25.
"2 Id. at 25-26.
"~ Port Authority PRM at 15.
" Sprint PRM at 26.
"~s Id. at 27.
"~ Port Authority Reply at 12-13.
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.
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/m1/40/: accessed May 24, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.