FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 3, Pages 1878 to 2785, February 21 - March 16, 2012 Page: 1,902
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
executed, BAH's invoices had exceeded the total amount approved in the FRA."''42 The TA Mediator
finds that despite Port Authority's claim that it carefully oversaw BAH's work. "there is no documentary
evidence that would permit Sprint Nextel or the Commission to review that claim."'43
53. Third, the TA Mediator finds that Port Authority violated the terms of the FRA by
undertaking significant tasks without discussing them with Sprint to determine whether such major
changes were necessary or whether there were more efficient ways to accomplish the same results.'" The
TA Mediator notes the following examples of such changes: (a) implementing a split EDACS system
which required several related costly changes; (b) installing a backup system at three airports; (c)
installing a back-to-back system for mutual aid channels; and (d) implementing an extensive testing
regime for the interiors of Port Authority's facilities.'45 The TA Mediator finds that such "unilateral
changes clearly violated the terms of the FRA and failed to provide [Sprint] with an opportunity to
negotiate the costs before they were incurred and perhaps to find more cost-effective solutions."'"6
54. Fourth, the TA Mediator finds that Port Authority failed to demonstrate that M/A-COM's
project management activities were reasonable. In many cases, the TA Mediator notes, the cost of M/A-
COM's project management services greatly exceeded the cost of the work M/A-COM was
55. Fifth, the TA Mediator finds that some of the increased costs claimed by Port Authority were
due to vendor errors or lack of expertise.' " For example, the TA Mediator cites Port Authority's
statement "that BAH had to provide support to unnamed vendors that did not have the necessary
equipment or expertise to do the jobs that they were expected to do."'149 The TA Mediator finds that Port
Authority did not demonstrate "why such costs, attributable to the capabilities of the vendors it [Port
Authority] selected, satisfy the Commission's Minimum Necessary Cost Standard."'-" Therefore the TA
Mediator concludes that Port Authority failed to satisfy its burden and recommends that any cost increase
above the amount allocated in the FRA be limited to the amount offered by Sprint.'5'
56. Foreseeability. The TA Mediator rejects Port Authority's contention that several of the
disputed tasks covered by the Change Notice were not foreseeable at the time the FRA was negotiated.'52
First, the TA Mediator concludes that it was foreseeable that there would be a need to maintain
communications at Kennedy, Newark, and Teterboro Airports during rebanding, so that if a temporary
backup system was the only means to maintain such communications, as Port Authority contends, that
those issues should have been negotiated in the FRA."3 Similarly, the TA Mediator finds that the need
for coverage testing of Port Authority's facilities was foreseeable and therefore should have been
'14 Id. at 21-22.
'44d. at 22.
i so /.
", id. at 23.
1 53 d
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/m1/43/: accessed February 25, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.