FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 3, Pages 1878 to 2785, February 21 - March 16, 2012 Page: 1,901
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
50. Minimum Necessary Cost Analysis. Applying the high level of scrutiny noted above, the TA
Mediator finds that Port Authority has failed to meet its burden relative to the additional services of BAH,
M/A-COM, and its internal staff, but that Port Authority has met its burden relative to requested costs for
legal and administrative fees.'2"
51. First, the TA Mediator concludes that Port Authority has not provided sufficient information
to evaluate the reasonableness of the costs claimed for the discrete tasks listed in its Change Notice.29
The TA Mediator states that Port Authority "makes no attempt" in its PRM and Reply PRM "'to identify
the time or cost attached to a particular matter in dispute.''130 Instead, the TA Mediator notes, Port
Authority "identifies the entire amount that is in dispute and then discusses the individual items without
any breakout of the costs.""' The TA Mediator notes "[t]hat approach is consistent with the information
that was provided by the [Port Authority] during the mediation which, particularly in the case of BAH and
the [Port Authority's] internal costs was extremely general with no specifics as to the tasks performed or
the time spent on the tasks."'32 The TA Mediator states that "Sprint Nextel repeatedly asked for greater
detail and the TA Mediator made similar requests during several informal mediation calls."'" The TA
Mediator acknowledges that Port Authority provided some additional information, but notes that "all of it
was general with no specifics concerning the work performed.""4 The TA Mediator thus finds that Port
Authority's "failure to provide details concerning the cost of each task and the reasonableness of such
cost is a serious flaw in the [Port Authority's] submissions."' The TA Mediator observes that "Sprint
Nextel attempted to identify M/A-COM's costs for each task because the M/A COM invoices did have
some detail, but, as stated in the Sprint Nextel PRM, in many cases that has been an estimate."'36 The TA
Mediator therefore concludes that he "'does not have sufficient information to evaluate the costs requested
by the [Port Authority] for individual tasks."'137
52. Second, the TA Mediator finds that Port Authority provided inadequate information on
BAH's activities."38 With respect to the largest portion of the Change Notice, the TA Mediator notes that
Port Authority "provided no invoices or other billing information as to the tasks that BAH undertook."''-'9
The TA Mediator notes that time was billed without reference to the specific tasks performed.40 The TA
Mediator states that Port Authority appears to have "continued to increase BAH's cap on fees as soon as
BAH's invoices were about to reach the cap without regard to the amounts in the FRA and without any
consultation or notice to Sprint Nextel."' "In fact," the TA Mediator states, "by the time the FRA was
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/m1/42/: accessed February 28, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.