Opinion ID: 6497766
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Network Launch

Text: Leading up to the network launch of the Initial Build, Fiber-Span and Transit continued their inconclusive back and forth about a permanent solution for the already installed Nodes. Fiber-Span took the position that the “permanent solution [would] be developed in conjunction with the larger Full Build,” while Transit believed “the permanent fix must be provided to the already-installed [Nodes] before the business relationship between the parties can continue.” (J.A. at 77.) Although the parties’ communications demonstrate a growing disconnect, Transit submitted a request to the MTA/NYCTA for approval of the network, stating that it had “satisfactor[il]y completed its construction of the Initial Build[.]” (J.A. at 813.) 6 Transit appears to have calculated that deduction from two invoices it sent Fiber-Span: one on October 28, 2011, for $38,997.74 in repair costs, and one on January 7, 2013, for $27,690 in “additional service repairs.” (Fiber-Span Op. Br. at 14; J.A. at 528-29, 589-92.) The final installment payment also included amounts due to Fiber-Span for supplemental invoices Fiber-Span submitted for $4,800 and $9,747. 7 It is unclear from the record before us precisely how this sum was calculated, but the parties do not dispute its accuracy. 14 The MTA/NYCTA accepted the Initial Build, and the network launched a few days later, on September 27, 2011. On November 18, 2011, Transit asked Fiber-Span for a status update and schedule for the “production version” Nodes. Fiber-Span stated that a schedule would be developed “at the time of new order placement” with replacement of the pilot Nodes to begin “along with Full Build Deliveries.” (J.A. at 78.) In January 2012, the parties reached an impasse. Transit sent a letter insisting that Fiber-Span replace the Initial Build Nodes and provide a committed delivery date. For its part, Fiber-Span reiterated its offer to upgrade those Nodes “upon receipt of a Production order … for the next round of 30 stations[.]” (J.A. at 79.) Transit threatened Fiber-Span with a lawsuit for breach of contract, but neither party took direct action against the other until the middle of that year.