Nice to read that.
It seems like so many agencies go directly to a single vendor with a very nebulous request for a "new radio system". So often we read about massive project overruns, poorly functioning systems, and lack of true open p25 systems.
By taking a project like this in house, including the IT department, and having staff that truly understand the technology, they've saved a lot of headaches and a lot of money. With cities and counties being so cash strapped, many have had to lay off staff that could have done a project like this. In the name of saving money, layoffs have eliminated the experienced personnel. They then turn to a single provider and basically hand over a blank check for them to do what they want with the final goals being very non-specific. The news is full of cost over runs, poorly operating systems, systems that get built but not put into use due to so many issues.
While we all assume that P25 is a standard, and it is, many manufacturers add in additional functions that are outside the standard. Technically the product meets P25, but the added on functions are not covered by the standard. Once these systems are in place, these additional functions lock the users into one manufacturer, basically negating the "open standard" idea that was originally behind P25. By letting one manufacturer come in and build the system with not enough over site by agency staff that truly understand the technology, they are putting themselves in a deep hole.
Richardson, by using their own staff, didn't fall into the trap that many system manufacturers have set. By using different brands and sticking to the standards, they'll likely be able to choose P25 products from any vendor, and truly be able to do competitive bidding for equipment.
I really wish others would learn from this. It would save us taxpayers a lot of money.