FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 3, Pages 1878 to 2785, February 21 - March 16, 2012 Page: 1,906
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
EDACS system to preserve capacity during the rebanding process.'s' We found that "'[b]ecause... Sprint
has taken 'necessary and reasonable steps' to protect Henry's system from disruption,... Henry's
proposed temporary build-out is unnecessary to preserve 'continuity of service' during reconfiguration of
its system."'8- Here, we conclude that, had Sprint been informed in advance of Port Authority's proposal
- as the Parties' FRA required - the Parties could have developed a reasonable, and likely more cost-
effective approach that would have supported continuity of service in Port Authority's system while it
was being reconfigured.
67. Unlike other rebanding efforts in which parties typically negotiate all reconfiguration
methodologies as part of the FRA, Port Authority unilaterally undertook major changes to its system, i.e.,
(a) splitting the EDACS facilities; (b) installing a backup system at three airports; (c) installing a back-to-
back system for mutual aid channels; and (d) implementing testing in the interior of its facilities) after it
executed its FRA and before it submitted its Change Notice to Sprint. Port Authority argues that Sprint
orally represented that it would reimburse all of these costs.'" We cannot accept such a claim as
sufficient to bind Sprint, however, when there is no confirmation of such an oral commitment in the
record. Moreover, Port authority's claim is contradicted by the Parties' FRA, which provides that all
monies spent under the FRA, including amendments and Change Notices, must be approved and
validated by the TA in advance of the expenditures and consistent with program standards.'S4 Port
Authority failed to follow this contractual procedure.
68. In addition, to determine whether a licensee has met its burden under the Minimum
Necessary Cost Standard, it is essential to know the nature of the discrete services provided to the
licensee, the time expended and the related expense. In this case, however, we cannot discern the nature
of the services that provide the basis for Port Authority's claim for an additional $955,865.43, because
Port Authority has failed to provide the requisite information in sufficient detail. Although Port Authority
identifies disputed tasks in the Change Notice, it fails to associate any specific time or cost with any of
these tasks.'"8 Instead, it merely asserts that the disputed tasks were reasonable and necessary and that
Sprint should therefore pay the entire amount requested - nearly $1 million more than was provided in the
executed FRA.'8" More is necessary for a licensee to meet its evidentiary burden to show that the
Minimum Necessary Cost Standard has been met.
69. Similarly, while Port Authority claims to have provided records of work performed by M/A-
COM, BAH, and Port Authority internal staff,"87 those records lack the requisite detail. Even after the
Parties submitted PRMs, the TA Mediator gave Port Authority another opportunity to explain its claimed
costs. It declined to do so. Instead. Port Authority submitted invoices and receipts from its vendors as
well as the Detailed Task Plan.'" Nothing in this volume of documentation, however, contains
information specific enough to support a finding that Port Authority has met its minimum necessary cost
burden. The documentation submitted in support of BAH's services consists, for the most part. of staff's
receipts for food, lodging and travel. Invoices from BAH are included, but without detail, i.e.. only "for
'sl County of Henry. Georgia, WT Docket 02-55. Aleemorandumn Opinion and Order. 25 FCC Red 10962 (PSHSB
'2 Id. at 10966 ll4.
'8. Port Authority PRM at 6.
184 id. Exhibit B at Section 7.
'~ See RR at n.45.
Iso See id.
' 7 See Port Authority PRM at Exhibits F. G and tl.
's Port Authority Reply at 5.
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/m1/47/: accessed February 23, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.