FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 3, Pages 1878 to 2785, February 21 - March 16, 2012 Page: 1,903
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
negotiated and included in the FRA.'54 In the case of the claim for additional compensation for BAH, the
TA mediator notes that even before the FRA was executed, BAH's invoices exceeded the $324,655.86
allocated to BAH in the FRA.55 Because the amount authorized under the FRA for BAH was exhausted,
the TA Mediator reasons, the additional amount claimed by BAH in Port Authority's Change Notice was
57. Legal and Administrative Fees. 1The TA Mediator recommends finding in favor of Port
Authority and directing Sprint to pay Port Authority's mediation and PRM costs.'57 The TA Mediator
notes that Port Authority provided documentary evidence supporting those costs, that they meet the
Minimum Necessary Cost Standard, and that they were not objected to by Sprint.58
58. Good Faith. The TA Mediator recommends finding that Sprint did not negotiate in bad
faith.159 The TA Mediator states that the inability of the Parties to reach agreement on the Change Notice,
standing alone, is not evidence of lack of good faith.'0"
A. Standard of Review
59. We evaluate Port Authority's Change Notice claims against four facets of Commission
guidance in this area. First, as a general matter, Change Notices are appropriate only when licensees are
faced with unanticipated changes in cost, scope, or schedule that occur during implementation or in the
case of an emergency.'6' Second, costs incurred by a licensee in excess of those authorized in a FRA are
at the licensee's risk until a Change Notice is submitted and approved.'62 Third, a licensee may not use
the Change Notice process to recover costs that were reasonably foreseeable during FRA negotiations but
were not raised in negotiations, or that were considered and rejected.'63 Fourth, costs sought in a Change
Notice must meet the Commission's Minimum Necessary Cost Standard.64
161 See FCC Announces Supplemental Procedures and Provides Guidance for Completion of 800 MHz Rebanding,
WT Docket 02-55, Public Notice, 22 FCC Red 17227. 17229 (2007) (Guidance PN).
162 See, e.g., County of Broward. Florida, WT Docket 02-55, Memorandum Opinion and Order. 26 FCC Red 7635.
7637 16 (PSIISB 2011) (Broward).
163 The Commission subsequently clarified that Change Notices are appropriate to allow licensees to recover costs
that are the result of"unanticipated changes in cost. scope or schedule that occur during implementation or in the
case of emergency." but "it is not reasonable for licensees to use the change notice process to attempt to re-negotiate
their agreements after the fact based on issues that should have been or actually were raised earlier." Improving
Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band. WT Docket 02-55. Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order.
23 FCC Red 18512, 18522 31 (2008) (Fourth MO&O).
164 800 MHz Report and Order. 19 FCC Rcd at 15074 198.
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/m1/44/: accessed March 24, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.