Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3862
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of 
State of Nevada 
and Sprint Nextel
Mediation No. TAM-12229
University and Community College System of 
Nevada 
and Sprint Nextel
Mediation No. TAM-12328
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket No. 02-55
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  September 6, 2007 Released:  September 7, 2007
By the Associate Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we address cases referred to us for de novo 
review from Wave 1, Stage 2 mediation by the 800 MHz Transition Administrator (TA) and involving 
disputes between the State of Nevada and the University and Community College System of Nevada
(UCCSN) (collectively Nevada) and Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint).  There are multiple issues in 
dispute that we address below, largely relating to Nevadas proposed use of internal personnel and two 
consultants, Galena Group International (Galena) and BH Consulting (BHC), to perform rebanding tasks.1  
As a threshold matter, we deny claims that the parties have acted in bad faith, but we admonish both 
Sprint and Nevada to focus their efforts on moving forward with rebanding rather than continued 
litigation of these disputes. Turning to the disputed issues, we approve the majority of Nevadas claims, 
but we require Nevada to provide further justification of certain costs that appear to be inconsistent with 
similar costs that were requested and approved in our recent Washoe County order. 2
II. BACKGROUND
2. Nevadas 800 MHz facilities are part of the Nevada Shared Radio System (NSRS), a 79-
site statewide system operated by the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT).3  The 800 MHz 
portion of NSRS operates on 21 frequencies at 9 sites.4  NSRS is used by 22 separate entities with a total 
of 6,457 mobile and portable radio units.  NSRS is also interoperable with the Washoe County Regional 
  
1 Galena provides telecommunications and project management services while BHC provides engineering, project 
management and legal services.  
2 County of Washoe and Sprint Nextel, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 11860 (PSHSB 2007) 
(Washoe MO&O).
3 See Proposed Resolution Memorandum of the State of Nevada and the University and Community College System 
of Nevada, filed by Nevada on December 11, 2006, Exhibit 1 at 3-4 (Nevada PRM).
4 Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3862
2
Communication System (Washoe).5 NDOT has been authorized to negotiate a Frequency Relocation 
Agreement (FRA) with Sprint on behalf of UCCSN for the reconfiguration of its single call sign 
WPWK236.6
3. In May 2006, Nevada provided Sprint with a draft reconfiguration plan without a cost 
estimate.  On October 11, 2006, Nevada provided Sprint an updated reconfiguration plan with a detailed 
statement of work and a cost estimate totaling $815,460.88.7 Nevada has included the costs for 
reconfiguring call sign WWK236 in its proposal.8 The parties were unable to conclude an FRA through 
negotiation and mediation, and on January 29, 2007, the TA mediator forwarded the record and his 
Recommended Resolution to the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) for de novo
review and resolution.  On February 12, 2007, Sprint and Nevada each filed a Statement of Position in 
this matter.9
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
4. As an initial matter, the Commissions orders in this docket assign to Nevada the burden 
of proving that the funding it has requested is reasonable, prudent, and the minimum necessary to 
provide facilities comparable to those presently in use.10 We note that the Commission has recently 
clarified this standard for purposes of determining whether licensee relocation costs are the minimum 
necessary to accomplish rebanding, and therefore must be paid by Sprint.11 In the Rebanding Cost 
Clarification Order, the Commission stated that the term minimum necessary cost does not mean the 
absolute lowest cost under any circumstances, but the minimum cost necessary to accomplish rebanding 
in a reasonable, prudent, and timely manner.12 This standard takes into account not just cost but all of 
the objectives of the proceeding, including timely and efficient completion of the rebanding process, 
minimizing the burden rebanding imposes on public safety licensees, and facilitating a seamless transition 
that preserves public safetys ability to operate during the transition.13
5. We also note that the issues in dispute in this case are in many respects similar to those 
we recently addressed in our Washoe County order.14  As noted above, the Washoe and Nevada systems 
are interoperable with one another.  The Nevada system is larger than Washoe in geographic scope, but 
the two systems are similar in size and complexity: the Nevada system has 6457 radios and nine sites to 
  
5 Id.
6 Nevada PRM at 2 n.3.
7 Id. at 4, Exhibit 4 at 34.
8 Id.
9 Statement of Position, filed by Sprint Nextel on February 12, 2007 (Sprint SOP) and Statement of Position, filed 
by State of Nevada on February 12, 2007 (Nevada SOP).
10 See Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order, 
Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 14969, 15074  198 (2004) (800 MHz Report and 
Order); Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Supplemental Order and Order on 
Reconsideration, 19 FCC Rcd 25120, 25152  71 (2004) (800 MHz Supplemental Order).
11 Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 
9818 (2007) (Rebanding Cost Clarification Order).
12 Id. at  6.
13 Id. at  8.
14 See generally Washoe MO&O.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3862
3
be reconfigured, while Washoe has 4239 radios and ten sites to be reconfigured.  Finally, Galena, the 
primary consultant for the Nevada system, is also the primary rebanding consultant in Washoe, and the 
apportionment of tasks between internal staff and Galena appears to be similar in both cases.15 Thus, in 
our review of disputed issues, we rely on our analysis in Washoe as well as the record before us in this 
case.
B. Good Faith
6. Nevada Position.  Nevada contends that Sprint has failed to negotiate in good faith 
throughout this mediation.16 Nevada asserts that Sprints questioning of multiple line items in the Nevada
proposal is unreasonable and has prolonged the process and increased Nevadas costs.17 Nevada also 
contends that the mediators statements in the RR support a finding that Sprint failed to negotiate in good 
faith.18
7. Sprint Position.  Sprint asserts that its questioning of Nevadas proposal was reasonable 
and consistent with its obligation to ensure that Nevadas costs met the minimum necessary cost 
standard.19 Sprint also contends that Nevada ignored Commission precedent with regard to its burden of 
proof and unreasonably refused to respond to requests for further information.20 Sprint asserts that the 
mediator erred in supporting Nevadas objections to providing further information and was unfairly 
biased in Nevadas favor in the mediation.21
8. Mediator Recommendation.  The mediator strongly criticized Sprint's conduct in the
mediation, although it did not expressly find that Sprint acted in bad faith.22
9. Discussion.  We do not find that either party has acted in bad faith, but we note that this 
proceeding has been unusually contentious and has resulted in a large number of disputed issues being 
referred to the Bureau.  Sprint has stated that prior to the issuance of the Rebanding Cost Clarification 
Order, it felt compelled in negotiations to challenge virtually every dollar spent on band reconfiguration 
to assure compliance with minimum cost.23 In this particular case, Sprints narrow interpretation of the 
standard caused it to respond to Nevadas detailed proposal and timeline by challenging or requesting 
additional information on numerous line items.  In response, Nevada objected to Sprints requests for 
more information and questioned Sprints motives in the negotiations.  The result was that both sides 
resorted to further litigation rather than seeking to resolve their disputes, and the mediator became 
increasingly frustrated at the parties lack of progress.
10. Based on the record as a whole, we believe that Sprint has not crossed the line and 
acted in bad faith, but that it was overzealous in challenging virtually every dollar in the Nevada 
proposal.  We also reject Sprints contention that Nevada responded unreasonably.  While Nevada could 
arguably have done more to seek a negotiated solution, we find that the overall level of detail that it 
provided in its proposal was sufficient to meet its burden of proof on most issues.  Finally, we do not 
  
15 Washoe MO&O at  31.
16 Nevada SOP at 4-13.
17 Id. at 3-4.
18 Id. at 6-9.
19 Sprint SOP at 7-8.
20 Reply of Nextel Communications, Inc. to the Proposed Resolution Memorandum of Licensee, filed December 13, 
2006 by Sprint, at 3-4 (Sprint Reply PRM).
21 Sprint SOP at 8-9.
22 Recommended Resolution, filed January 29, 2007 by the 800 MHz Transition Administrator, LLC at 50-51 (RR).
23 Rebanding Cost Clarification Order. at  3.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3862
4
agree with Sprints assertion of unfair bias by the mediator.  In any event, because our review is de novo, 
the mediators findings are advisory only and are not afforded deference in this review.
11. In reaching the above conclusions, we underscore that it is Nevada and Sprints future 
behaviornot their past behaviorthat is now most critical to successfully completing the rebanding of 
the Nevada system.  It is our expectation thatas the Commission admonished in the Rebanding Cost 
Clarification Order our action today will spur the parties to reorient their approach to this process. 24
The core goal of the rebanding proceeding is not to minimize costs, but to complete rebanding in a 
reasonable, prudent, and timely manner, so that the interference problem that threatens 800 MHz public 
safety systems is resolved as quickly and as comprehensively as possible.25 Going forward, we expect 
Sprint and Nevada to keep their eyes on that prizeas they work through the details of this complex 
process.26
C. Negotiation Costs
1. Licensee and Consultant Negotiation Costs
12. Nevada Position.  Nevada requests compensation for 400 hours spent by internal staff, 
Galena, and BHC during negotiations responding to questions and requests from Sprint for supporting 
documentation.27  Nevada originally estimated that 176 hours would be sufficient to cover these tasks but 
states that the increase is reflective of the actual hours incurred.28
13. Sprint Position.  Sprint contends that the increased request is not justified because 
Nevada utilized a six-person negotiating team (three state employees, two Galena representatives, and one 
BHC representative) when a three-person team would have sufficed.29
14. Mediator Recommendation.  The mediator recommends the Commission allow at least 
300 of the 400 hours requested. 30
15. Discussion.  We approve Nevadas request for 400 hours.  The time requested covers not 
only face-to-face negotiations, but the considerable additional time that Nevadas negotiators spent 
assembling data to respond to Sprint's multiple requests for information.  In addition, Sprint did not object 
to the size of Nevada's negotiation team during the negotiations.31
2. M/A-Com Negotiation Costs
16. Nevada Position.  Nevada seeks reimbursement for 27 hours of time spent by M/A-Com 
in support of Nevadas negotiations with Sprint.  These hours include communications between M/A-
Com and Sprint as well as conferring with State employees and consultants on various issues.32  
17. Sprint Position.  Sprint argues that 12 of the claimed hours are excessive, a claim which it 
  
24 Rebanding Cost Clarification Order, Joint Statement of Chairman Kevin L. Martin and Commissioners Michael 
J. Copps, Jonathan S. Adelstein, Deborah Taylor Tate and Robert M. McDowell (Joint Statement).
25 Rebanding Cost Clarification Order at  8.
26 Id., Joint Statement.
27 Nevada Reply PRM at 29-31.
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 RR at 47.
31 Id.
32 See Supplemental Proposed Resolution Memorandum of the State of Nevada and the University and Community 
College Systems of Nevada, filed January 11, 2007 at 5-6, App C at 3, App. E at 2 (Nevada Supplemental PRM).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3862
5
bases on the fact that M/A-Com is requesting reimbursement for 14 hours of negotiation time during a 
time period when Sprint and M/A-Com had no direct communications.33
18. Mediator Recommendation.  The mediator recommends that the Commission approve
Nevadas request for 27 hours of M/A-Com time.34 The mediator found that M/A-Com participated in the 
negotiation of the FRA with Sprint and the licensees on a regular basis since October 2006, including 
meetings with Nevada of which Sprint was not aware.35
19. Discussion.  We approve Nevadas request for 27 hours.  The hours attributed to M/A-
Com are not limited to communications with Sprint.  In addition, the difference in the amount sought by 
Nevada and the amount offered by Sprint is de minimis.  The Commission has made clear in the 
Rebanding Cost Clarification Order that under such circumstances, it is appropriate for Sprint to pay such 
costs rather than to spend more substantial resources on prolonged mediation.36
D. Planning Costs
1. Site Inspection
20. Nevada Position.  Nevada seeks approximately $24,500 for 56 Galena and 347 internal 
hours to physically inspect and inventory the equipment at the systems nine 800 MHz sites, as well as 
verification of site documentation and identification of any site-related technical issues.37
21. Sprint Position.  Sprint offers 270 hours for these tasks (assuming 3 people spending 10 
hours per site at each site).38
22. Mediator Recommendation.  The mediator recommends that the Commission allow all
403 hours requested by Nevada.39 The mediator argues that Sprints offer of 270 hours misinterprets 
Nevadas explanation of the various tasks and ignores the time required by key consultants.40
23. Discussion. We approve 180 hours for this task.  While Nevada is clearly entitled to 
reasonable compensation for site inspection and related tasks, we note that Nevadas request for these 
tasks is significantly higher than the similar request we approved in Washoe County. In Washoe, we 
approved 160 hours for inspection of eight sites, to be conducted by two people at 10 hours per site.41  We 
also approved 30 hours for verification of site documentation.42  Nevada requires inspection of nine sites, 
and the work will be performed by the same consultant (Galena) that is performing the work for Washoe
County.  However, Nevada has requested 296 hours for site inspection, more that 50 percent higher than 
in Washoe on a per-site basis.43  In addition, Nevada requests 60 hourstwice the amount in Washoe
  
33 See Supplemental Proposed Resolution Memorandum of Nextel Communications, filed January 11, 2007 (Sprint 
Supplemental PRM).  Sprint does accept 2 hours of M/A-COM time to prepare a one and one-half page letter during 
that time period.  Id. at 10.
34 RR at 50.
35 Id.
36 Rebanding Cost Clarification Order at  6.
37 Nevada PRM, Ex. 6 at 2, Ex. 4 at 32.
38 Sprint Supplemental PRM at 10.
39 RR at 44.
40 Id.
41 Washoe MO&O at  11-15.
42 Id. at  36.
43 Washoe MO&O. at  11-15, Nevada PRM, Exhibit 4 at 32. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3862
6
for site document verification.44 In the absence of any explanation for the difference, we conclude that 
180 hours (two people spending 10 hours per site) is reasonable for site inspection and 30 hours is 
reasonable for document verification.  However, we will provide Nevada an opportunity to request 
additional compensation for this task by submitting a showing to Sprint and the mediator justifying the 
difference in comparison to Washoe.  Nevada must submit this showing within fourteen days of release of 
this order.45 Finally, we approve Nevadas request for 23 hours to identify and resolve any issues that 
might arise from these other tasks.
2. Radio Personality Inventory
24. Nevada Position.  Nevada seeks 308 hours to inventory radio personalities in its 
existing radios46 and 12 hours to baseline test one of each type and model of radio involved in 
rebanding.47  A radio personality is the specific program that controls the radio.48  Nevada proposes to 
analyze the personalities in order to reduce the large number of unique personalities in its existing system 
(currently over 640) to a smaller number that will be used post-rebanding. Nevada claims that reducing 
the number of personalities will make the final reprogramming of system radios more efficient.49
25. Sprint Position.  Sprint offers no hours for these tasks, arguing that this task is not 
necessary for rebanding but is an attempt by Nevada to have Sprint pay for repacking of channels in its 
radios.50
26. Mediator Recommendation.  The mediator recommends that the Commission allow the 
308 hours requested by Nevada.51 The mediator contends that Nevada has shown that the computer-based 
radios could malfunction and be totally inoperable without proper programming for features and functions 
and that it must deal with over 640 unique radio programs.52 The mediator rejects Sprints argument that 
the inventory is part of Nevadas repacking plan.53
27. Discussion. We approve 200 hours for this task.  We note that Washoe intends to perform 
the same task in its rebanding plan even though there is not evidence that Washoe intends to repack its 
radios.54  However, we also note that Nevada has requested almost three times as many hours for this task 
(320 hours) as we approved in Washoe (128 hours).55  Given that the same consultant (Galena) is working 
on both projects, and that Washoe has approximately two-thirds as many radios as Nevada, we believe 
200 hours for these tasks is sufficient.  However, in accordance with the procedure described in Section 
III.D.1 above, Nevada may request additional compensation by submitting a showing to Sprint and the 
  
44 Washoe MO&O. at  11-15, Nevada PRM, Exhibit 6 at 2, Exhibit 4 at 32.
45 If Nevada submits a showing and the parties are unable to resolve the issue through mediation within 14 days 
thereafter, the mediator shall refer the issue to PSHSB.
46 Reply of the State of Nevada and the University and Community College Systems of Nevada, filed December 13, 
2006 by Nevada at 18 (Nevada Reply PRM).
47 Id.
48 Id. at 18-19.
49 Id.
50 Sprint PRM at 13-14.
51 RR at 45.
52 Id.
53 Id.
54 Washoe MO&O at  38.
55 Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3862
7
mediator within fourteen days of release of this order explaining and justifying the difference in 
comparison to Washoe.
3. Development of New Radio Personalities and System Profiles  
28. Nevada Position.  Nevada seeks 208 hours to develop the new radio personalities that 
will be installed in the radios,56 246 hours to test these profiles in sample radios57 and 80 hours to identify 
any problems and create a solution and retest.58
29. Sprint Position.  Sprint rejects these tasks as unnecessary for rebanding.59  Sprint argues 
that the design and testing a new system structure are not necessary to rebanding and suggests that this is 
a repacking-related task.60
30. Mediator Recommendation.  The mediator recommends that the Commission allow the 
hours.61 The mediator contends that Nevada has explained why these tasks are necessary for rebanding,
not repacking.62 The mediator also finds this task essential to provide the proper radio programs to each 
system user.63
31. Discussion. We find that these tasks are rebanding-related and therefore represent a 
recoverable expense for 100 hours. 64 We are again informed by the fact that Washoe intends to undertake 
a similar task even though there is no evidence that Washoe intends to repack.65 However, Nevadas total
request (534 hours) is over ten times higher than equivalent request that we approved in Washoe for the
same tasks (50 hours), with no explanation for the difference.66 Because Nevada has more radio units 
than Washoe, we approve 100 hours for these tasks, but Nevada may seek more compensation by 
submitting a showing within fourteen days under the procedure described in Section III.D.1 above.
4. Development of Radio Programming Schedule
32. Nevada Position. Rebanding Nevadas system will require touching each of the systems 
6,457 radios twice, once to program in the new band plan and a second time after the transition is 
completed to remove pre-rebanding channels and personalities from the radios.  Nevada requests 
compensation for 276 internal staff hours to prepare a schedule for each of the two touches and to identify 
locations around the state where each radio will be brought for programming.67
33. Sprint Position.  Sprint contends that 100 hours is sufficient to accomplish these tasks.68
  
56 Nevada Reply PRM at 20.
57 Id. at 21.
58 Id.
59 Sprint PRM at 14-15.
60 Id.
61 RR at 46.
62 Id.
63 Id.
64 RR at 46.
65 Washoe MO&O at  38.
66 Id.
67 Nevada Reply PRM at 33, 36.
68 Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3862
8
34. Mediator Recommendation.  The mediator recommends reducing this amount to 207 
hours because Nevada should require less time for development of the schedule for the second touch than 
the schedule for the first touch (138 hours for the first iteration and 69 hours for the second).69
35. Discussion. We agree with Nevada that development of multiple schedules is not 
inherently duplicative: because each radio will be touched twice, it is reasonable for Nevada to develop 
separate schedules for the first and second touches.70 We also agree with Nevada that it is appropriate for 
both internal staff and consultant staff to be involved in the schedule development process, particularly 
given the large number of agencies that use the Nevada system and the dispersion of users across the 
state. However, we agree with the mediator that Nevada should be able to gain efficiencies in 
development of the second schedule based on similar elements that have been developed in the first 
schedule. For example, the selection of locations for the first touch of each radio should save time and 
effort in the selection of locations for the second touch of each radio.  Therefore, we concur with the 
mediators conclusion that 207 hours is sufficient because development of the first schedule will lead to 
cost reductions in developing the second.
5. Refinement of Site Retuning Plan 
36. Nevada Position. Nevada seeks 48 hours to refine the infrastructure site retuning plan71
and 25 hours to estimate the cost of the repeater site retuning efforts.72
37. Sprint Position.  Sprint argues that these costs are not reimbursable because M/A-Com 
will develop a site retuning plan, which will include a timeline and estimated costs.73
38. Mediator Recommendation.  The mediator finds that Nevada has met its burden of proof 
on these matters and that these efforts are not duplicative of M/A-Com's efforts because M/A-Com's 
efforts are in implementation rather than planning.74
39. Discussion. We concur with the mediator's finding that these hours are not duplicative of 
M/A-Coms efforts.  Again, however, we note that Nevadas proposed hours for these tasks (73 hours) are 
over three times higher than Washoes (24 hours).75 We approve 50 hours for these tasks, unless Nevada 
incurs greater actual costs and can demonstrate that the additional time is justified.
6. Galena Hourly Rates
40. Nevada Position. Nevada proposes that the principal Galena employee working on the 
project will bill at $200/hour and his associate will bill at $150/hour.76 Nevada argues that it has provided 
historical justification for these rates.77
41. Sprint Position. Sprint objects that these are excessive premium rates.78
  
69 RR at 48.
70 Washoe MO&O at  45.
71 Nevada Supplemental PRM at 13.
72 Id. at 14.
73 Sprint PRM at 11.
74 RR at 45.
75 Proposed Resolution Memorandum of Nextel Communications, Inc. in TAM 12342 (Washoe County), filed 
March 2, 2007, Exhibit B at 1 (Washoe Task List).
76 RR at 39.
77 Nevada Reply PRM at 47.
78 Sprint PRM at 27-29.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3862
9
42. Mediator Recommendation.  The mediator recommends that the Commission allow the 
rates requested by Nevada on behalf of Galena.79 The mediator argues that rates have been justified in 
numerous documents. While Sprint objects to the lack of any historical data on these rates, Galena as a 
relatively new entity does not have a track record of invoices.80 Moreover, Sprint does not mention the 
fact that Galena Group has billed Nevada at the requested rates for work on non-reconfiguration matters.81  
The mediator also notes that it can not evaluate Sprints contention that Galena Group has charged lower 
rates to other licensees because Sprint Nextel has refused to provide this information to the mediator.82
43. Discussion. We conclude that Galena may charge rates for its employees that are 
consistent with their standard billing rates for other projects.  However, we note that Galena is proposing 
to charge Nevada at a $200/hour rate for tasks that will be billed to Washoe County at $150/hour.83 We 
therefore direct Nevada to either apply the lower rate or provide documentation to the mediator in support 
of charging a higher rate than in Washoe.
E. Implementation Costs
1. User Training
44. Nevada Position. Nevada proposes to spend 2475 hours training each 800 MHz radio 
user how to use the reconfigured radios.84 Training will consist of two training sessions for each user: one 
15-minute session to familiarize each officer with the temporary programs that will be in their radios 
during the reconfiguration process, and a second 10-minute session to educate each officer about the new 
channels once reconfiguration is complete.85
45. Sprint Position.  Sprint contends that one 10-minute session and one 5-minute session per 
officer is sufficient and offers 1465 hours for this task.86
46. Mediator Recommendation.  The mediator recommends that the Commission allow 2475 
hours.87 The mediator notes that both parties recognize the need to train radio users during both
reprogramming phases and opines that Nevadas estimate is more realistic than Sprints.88
47. Discussion.  We approve 2475 hours for user training.  As we stated in Washoe, we 
believe that the licensee is generally in the best position to assess the training needs of its users, and we 
will not substitute our judgment provided the licensees assessment is reasonable in light of the record as 
a whole.89 We find that to be the case here, and therefore approve Nevadas request.
2. Tracking Rebanding Hours and Expenditures  
48. Nevada Position. Nevada proposes to budget 440 hours (320 for internal staff, 96 for 
  
79 RR at 50.
80 Id.
81 Id.
82 Id.
83 Washoe Task List.
84 Nevada PRM Ex. 4 at 33.
85 Id.
86 Id.
87 RR at 49.
88 Id.
89 Washoe MO&O at  10.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3862
10
Galena, and 24 for BHC) to track rebanding work hours and expenditures for audit purposes.  Nevada 
estimates that internal staff and consultants will spend slightly less than 20 hours per month on this task 
over a 24-month project cycle.90
49. Sprint Position.  Sprint offers 120 hours based on 10 hours per month and a 12-month 
project cycle.91 Sprint also contends that costs incurred by vendors to track internal time are not 
reimbursable to licensees.92
50. Mediator Recommendation.  The mediator recommends allowing Nevada 350 hours over 
24 months, but does not allocate the hours in any fashion.93
51. Discussion. We conclude that Nevada should recover costs at its proposed per-month 
rate, including costs already incurred, for the actual duration of the rebanding process.94 Because we do 
not yet know how many months rebanding the Nevada system will take, we need not decide between 
Nevadas 24-month figure and Sprints 12-month figure, but we emphasize that rebanding of the system 
must be timely and expeditious.
3. Status Reporting
52. Nevada Position. Nevada seeks 88 hours for internal status reporting to state officials 
over a 475-day period.95 Nevada explains that it will use a variety of methods for this reporting, which 
will occur at all levels of the project, including project management and NDOT management as well.96  
Nevada states that it has allocated BHC hours for this task because BHC's principal is a former Chief 
Deputy Attorney General and former prosecutor and thus is well acquainted with NDOT and the public 
safety agencies that are part of the State radio system.97
53. Sprint Position.  Sprint offers 40 hours for this task, arguing that most reporting to state 
officials is not necessary because at least one state employee will be present during all phases of the 
reconfiguration process, including the implementation phase.98 Sprint also challenges the BHC hours on 
the grounds that Galena is the project manager, and that BHC is primarily tasked with providing legal 
assistance.99
54. Mediator Recommendation. The mediator recommends that the Commission allow the 
88 hours requested by Nevada.100 The mediator notes that Nevada requires status reporting for all
projects of this size and nature, including internal reports for NDOT personnel.101
55. Discussion. We approve 88 hours. We note that the expertise offered in support of the 8 
  
90 Nevada PRM at 11.
91 Sprint PRM at 20-21.
92 Id.
93 RR at 48.
94 Washoe MO&O at  44.
95 Nevada Reply PRM at 31-32.
96 Id.
97 Id. at 32.
98 Sprint PRM at 19-20.
99 Id.
100 RR at 47-48.
101 Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3862
11
BHC hours would be relevant in a lobbying context but is usually not necessary for communicating how 
the project is progressing to state agencies.  However the amount at issue is de minimis so we will 
approve.
4. Radio Reprogramming
56. Nevada Position. Nevada seeks 508 hours for participation by internal staff and Galena 
personnel in the first touch of the systems radio units and 468 hours for the second touch.102  Nevada 
estimates that several programming teams will be deployed throughout the state, with each team 
consisting of several individuals.103  Although these teams will not conduct the actual reprogramming of 
radios, Nevada contends that their participation is necessary for quality assurance and because state policy
requires that a state representative be present during the entire reprogramming process.104
57. Sprint Position.  Sprint proposes to pay for 220 hours for each of the two programming 
stages.105 Sprint argues that because the retuning will be performed by M/A-Com, there is no need for 
Galena to be involved and the state does not require the large number of personnel that it has proposed for 
this task.106
58. Mediator Recommendation.  The mediator recommends that the Commission allow the
hours requested by Nevada for this task.107 The mediator accepts Nevadas explanation that even though 
Nevadas vendor will be responsible for programming, state policy requires state personnel to be present. 
The mediator also notes that several teams of state employees will be needed for this task because 
reprogramming will occur at multiple sits throughout the State.108
59. Discussion. We approve Nevadas request for 976 hours.  As the mediator recognized, 
reprogramming will involve touching over 6400 radios at over 30 locations and sometimes will involve 
multiple reprogramming sessions.109 We believe it is reasonable for the state to have teams to monitor the 
reprogramming process, particularly where it is required as a matter of state policy.110  Although Nevadas 
level of effort in this regard is greater than Washoes (190 hours/4239 units),111 Nevada must retune radios 
throughout the state as opposed to a single county and Nevada has more units.
5. Project Close-Out
60. Nevada Position. Nevada estimates that it will require 136 hours over 60 days to 
complete the close-out of the project after the system is rebanded.  The time requested will cover 
meetings and document review to ensure that all necessary close-out steps have been taken and that Sprint 
agrees that the project is complete.112
61. Sprint Position.  Sprint offers 24 hours for these tasks, arguing that some of Nevadas 
  
102 Nevada Reply PRM at 39.
103 Id.
104 Id.
105 Sprint PRM at 23-24.
106 Id.
107 RR at 49.
108 Id.
109 Id.
110 RR at 49.
111 Washoe Task List at 4.
112 Nevada Reply PRM at 43-44.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3862
12
proposed work under this line item is duplicative of other tasks.113
62. Mediator Recommendation.  The mediator recommends that the Commission allow the 
136 hours.114 The mediator contends that Sprints offer of 24 hours is not otherwise explained.115
63. Discussion. We approve Nevadas request for 136 hours.  Sprint has not shown the task 
to be duplicative.  In addition, as we have stated in prior cases, the amount awarded is not a liquidated 
amount, but Nevada must document that the budgeted time is actually spent in the manner described and 
contributes to rebanding of the system.116
F. De Minimis Costs
64. In the Rebanding Cost Clarification Order, the Commission stated that it is appropriate 
for Sprint to agree to (and the TA to approve) payment of disputed costs where such payment will avoid 
greater expense to negotiate and/or mediate the dispute and will further the goal of timely and efficient 
rebanding.117  We conclude that resolving the following disputed issues in Nevadas favor is consistent 
with this standard, because the combined amounts in dispute for these issues total approximately $40,000 
which is de minimis in relation to the overall cost of the project.118
 20 hours for Galena to identify state employees who can assist with completing an accurate 
inventory or mobile and portable radios.119
 44 hours for Nevada and BHC to researching orders and documents relating to 800 MHz 
rebanding.120 Sprint offers to reimburse for 24 hours of work.121
 11 hours for internal staff and Galena to identify legal assistance that Nevada needs for 
rebanding.122
 16 Galena hours, 18 internal hours, and 3 BHC hours for activities spent determining if 
additional project management resources are necessary to accomplish rebanding.123
 50 hours of BHC time performing legal work developing an RFP, requesting responses, 
  
113 Sprint PRM at 25-26.
114 RR at 49.
115 Id.
116 See City of Manassas, Virginia and Sprint Nextel, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 8526, 85311 
16 (PSHSB 2007).
117 Rebanding Cost Clarification Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 9820-21  9.
118 We also approve 99 hours for two issues that are no longer contested.  Nevada did not contest the mediators 
finding that 24 hours rather than 56 hours is sufficient for development of an internal and external payment process.  
See Nevada Reply PRM at 27-28, Sprint PRM at 18 and RR at 47.  The mediator also found that 75 hours was the 
appropriate time for review and collaboration with M/A-COM of the site retuning plan effort as opposed to 
Nevadas request of 112 hours and Sprints offer of 40 hours.   See Nevada Reply PRM at 12-13, Sprint PRM at 10-
11 and RR at 44.
119 Nevada Reply PRM at 17-18.
120 Nevada Reply PRM at 9-10 and Nevada PRM, Exhibit 4 at 32. 
121 Nevada PRM, Exhibit 5 at 1. 
122 Nevada Reply PRM at 7
123 Id. at 8.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3862
13
selecting a technical services firm, and contracting with that firm.124
 12 hours for attendance by two state employees and two Galena employees at a four-hour 
meeting to discuss and update Nevada's licensing plan.125
 20 internal and 4 Galena hours to identify testing and quality assurance procedures prior to 
rebanding and 14 hours to identify the programming and test equipment.126
 12 internal and 4 Galena hours to assess information gathered during initial contacts with 
specific agencies to identify any additional hardware and/or software necessary for the 
reprogramming.127
 4 internal and 8 Galena hours to identify internal staff who can resolve technical issues 
discovered during the site inventory process.128
G. Tasks With Higher Costs Than Equivalent Washoe County Costs
65. Nevada seeks approval of a number of line items that we find to be recoverable costs in 
principle, but where the amount sought is significantly higher than the amount that has been sought and 
that we have approved for the equivalent task in our Washoe order.  As we have noted above, the Nevada 
and Washoe systems are similar in size, and have the same primary consultant (Galena).  Therefore, 
where Nevada seeks a significantly higher amount than in Washoe, we require Nevada to accept a lesser 
amount unless it submit a showing to Sprint and the mediator explaining and justifying the difference in 
accordance with the procedure described in section III.D.1 above.  Nevada must submit this showing 
within fourteen days of release of this order.
 40 hours to identify fixed base radios to be reprogrammed.129 Nevada notes that it separated this 
task from the inventory of mobile and portable radios because of its experience with the lax 
inventory associated with base station radios.130  The time allotted is over twice the amount that 
Washoe seeks (14 hours), even though Nevada is working with fewer base stations.131 We 
approve 14 hours unless Nevada submits a showing justifying 40 hours.
 60 hours to identify internal technical staff necessary to prepare for mobile programming.132  
Sprint offers 10 hours for Nevada to determine whether it will reprogram mobiles using internal 
resources.133 However, Washoe only sought six hours to accomplish the same task.134 We 
approve 10 hours in light of the larger number of mobiles in the Nevada system, unless Nevada 
submits a showing justifying 60 hours.
  
124 Nevada PRM, Ex. 6 at 2, Ex. 4 at 32.
125 Nevada PRM at 6, Ex. 6 at 2.
126 Nevada Reply PRM at 22-24, Nevada PRM, Ex. 4 at 32.
127 Nevada Reply PRM at 23, Nevada PRM, Ex. 4 at 32.
128 Nevada Reply PRM at 15, Nevada PRM, Ex. 4 at 32.
129 Id. at 24.
130 Id.
131 Washoe Task List at 3.
132 Nevada Reply PRM at 17.
133 Sprint PRM at 12-13.
134 Washoe Task List at 2.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-3862
14
 176 hours for development of a cost estimate, identification of what internal, consultant, and legal 
resources will be included in the cost estimate, and the identification of cost and time for legal 
assistance and consultants.135 Washoes plan does not include a line item for this task. We 
decline to approve this task unless Nevada submits a showing justifying 176 hours.
 188 hours to test radios for quality assurance after they have been reprogrammed.136 This task 
will occur after each programming iteration.  Nevada claims that it is required by state policy to 
check and accept all work performed by a technical service firm.137 Nevada also states that
testing will protect officer safety and identify potential errors that could otherwise lead to radios 
needing to be recalled and reprogrammed.138 We believe that reasonable testing of radios after 
rebanding is a prudent and recoverable expense to ensure that there are no systemic errors in the 
radios.139 However, the 188 hours sought by Nevada are significantly higher than the 20 hours 
that were requested and approved in Washoe.140 We approve 40 hours unless Nevada submits a 
showing justifying 188 hours.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
66. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority of Sections 0.191 and 0.392 of the Commissions 
rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.191, 0.392; Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
 154(i), and Section 90.677, of the Commissions Rules, 47 C.F.R.  90.677, IT IS ORDERED that the 
issues submitted by the Transition Administrator are resolved as discussed above.
67. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Transition Administrator shall convene a meeting 
of the parties consistent within fourteen days of the date of this Order for the purpose of completing a 
Frequency Relocation Agreement consistent with the resolution of issues set forth herein.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
David L. Furth
Associate Bureau Chief
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
  
135 RR at 21-23.
136 Nevada Reply PRM at 39.
137 Id.
138 Id. at 38-39.
139 RR at 49.
140 Washoe Exhibit at 4.  The task is listed at Pre-tests and quality assurance procedures.