With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the possibility of constructing a replacement tower that would accommodate telecommunications and emergency facilities. See Dep. of Robert Hassinger at 85 (stating that the State Police tower was discussed at the hearing, but that it would need to be rebuilt in order to accommodate a cell site). As a final point with respect to the State Police tower, Célico contends that the State Police are unlikely to agree to sharing a tower with a wireless service provider. There is no evidence, however, that Célico ever approached the State Police with an offer. Finally, Célico does not appear to have adequately considered the possibility of reconfiguring its network, or using cell sites from outside Grafton Center to provide service within Grafton Center. See Second Generation, 313 F.3d at 635 (<HOLDING>). Despite the fact that the Board indicated

A: holding that a 23month gap was insufficient to show staleness
B: holding a task order for expanded flight services for the navy was within the scope because the contract was to cover services worldwide
C: holding that the more than three month gap between the plaintiffs eeoc complaint and the allegedly adverse action was insufficient to show causation
D: holding that the provider failed to show that other potential solutions such as a taller tower or a site in another jurisdiction could not cover the gap in services
D.