Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Coachella Order

Download Options

Released: April 16, 2014

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-503

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

WT Docket No. 02-55



April 16, 2014


April 16, 2014
By the Deputy Chief, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau:
1. On March 31, 2014 Coachella Valley Water District, California (Coachella) filed its second
request for an extension of time within which to provide a cost estimate for reconfiguration of its 800
MHz communications system to Sprint Corporation (Sprint) and the 800 MHz Transition Administrator
(TA). Coachella, which first requested an extension of time until March 31, 2014,1 now requests a
further extension until August 31, 2014. Coachella’s cost estimate was initially due on February 3, 2014.2
2. Coachella states that the requested extension is necessary because Coachella delayed signing
its Planning Funding Agreement (PFA) with Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Motorola) until “just recently.”3 It
claims that Motorola estimates that it will provide a Statement of Work (SOW) to Coachella by August 8,
2014 and that, based on the SOW, Coachella will produce a cost estimate by August 31, 1014.
Previously, Coachella claimed that Motorola would produce a SOW by March 31, 2014. In its instant
request for extension of time Coachella does not explain the 7 month delay in producing a cost estimate
except to state that its PFA was approved “just recently.”
3. In fact, the Coachella PFA was approved at the “end of January”4 – not “just recently”5 – and
Coachella represented that “with that approval in hand, “Motorola is able to begin the planning process,”
with Coachella submitting its “SOW to Sprint by March 31, 2014.”6 In stating, at the end of March, that
Coachella board approval was received “just recently” when that approval was actually received in
January, Coachella strays uncomfortably close to misrepresentation.
4. In its instant request – its second – Coachella offers the same excuse for not timely
producing a cost estimate as it offered the first time: its delay in executing a PFA. We are neither

1 Coachella Valley Water District, California, Request for Extension of Time filed Feb.3, 2014 (First Request).
2 Id. at 1.
3 Coachella Valley Water District, California, Request for Extension of Time filed Mar. 31, 2014 (Second
4 First Request at 1.
5 Second Request at 1.
6 First Request at 2.

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-503

persuaded by that excuse a second time - nor convinced that Motorola – which first estimated it would
“submit a draft SOW by mid-March”7 now requires until August 8, 2014 to do the same work. Notably,
Coachella’s requests lack any verification from Motorola of Coachella’s claims.
5. If Motorola, as Coachella represents,8 began the planning process at the end of January, 2014
we see no reason why that process cannot be completed by mid-June. Therefore, we are ordering
Coachella to produce a cost estimate to Sprint and the TA by June 30, 2014.
6. Should Coachella not produce a cost estimate to Sprint and the TA by June 30, 2014 for
reasons outside its reasonable control, it shall file a further request for extension of time, supported by
declarations under penalty of perjury, setting out the reasons for its non-compliance with this Order. The
declarations shall be from a Coachella principal and, if delay is attributable to Motorola, from a
management-level Motorola official. Any such request shall contain a firm schedule for completion of
the cost estimate, itemized on a day-to-day basis. Additionally, Coachella shall report to the TA mediator
each week, until the SOW is complete, on the status of the planning work.
7. Accordingly IT IS ORDERED that the Request for Extension of Time, filed March 31, 2014,
by the Coachella Valley Water District, California, IS DENIED.
8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Coachella Valley Water District, California, SHALL
PRODUCE to Sprint Corporation and the 800 MHz Transition Administrator, a cost estimate for the
reconfiguration of its 800 MHz system on or before June 30, 2014.
Michael J. Wilhelm
Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules Division
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau

7 Id.
8 First Request at 1.

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.


You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.