Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Program Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hood County hears two firms for transportation program management; decision tabled
Summary
County Commissioners heard 10‑minute presentations from Innovative Transportation Solutions and Friese & Nichols on RFQ 2025‑57 for transportation program development and strategic planning. Commissioners pressed for clearer project timelines and fee structure; the court voted unanimously to table the decision for further review.
Hood County Commissioners on May 13 heard competing presentations from two finalists for RFQ 2025‑57, a contract to provide transportation program development and strategic planning for the county. Innovative Transportation Solutions (ITS) and Friese & Nichols each delivered roughly 10‑minute overviews and answered detailed commissioner questions.
John Polster of Innovative Transportation Solutions said the firm focuses on program management and on leveraging partner funds rather than performing engineering work. "All the things we do, we do because our intention is to leverage your funds as much as possible," Polster said, describing work that helped clients secure state and federal funding and accelerate project schedules. ITS representatives said they typically charge a flat fee for campaign‑style bond support and can provide program advocacy separate from county‑funded work.
Friese & Nichols presented a team approach and emphasized program‑level tools, on‑system funding strategies and public‑facing dashboards. Alan Grier, the Friese & Nichols principal in charge, noted the firm’s bond‑program experience: "I've personally been involved in planning of nine bond programs and the implementation of five of those programs," he said, detailing past projects and funding leverage.
Commissioners questioned both teams on specifics: which counties they currently serve, how fees are structured (flat fee versus hourly billing), how the firms avoid conflicts of interest when advising on projects that could later be procured, and what a clear project plan from current status to a voter‑approved bond would look like. Brenda Callaway of ITS and Chris Bosco and Stanford Lynch of Friese & Nichols answered on procurement safeguards, program sequencing, and outreach strategies.
After extended questioning about scope, contractor roles and the political/advocacy portion of work related to bond campaigns, Commissioner Andrews moved to table the award so the court could review proposals and additional details. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously. Court staff said the finalists would be notified and the item would be considered at a later session.
The tabling leaves the county without a program manager in place; commissioners asked staff to return with clearer fee comparisons, written project schedules and conflict‑of‑interest safeguards before any award.
