The county is going after a piece of $1.1 billion in federal money allocated to the state to expand broadband internet service to unserved and underserved areas by working with Armstrong, whose $15-$18 million expansion proposal was recommended by a consultant.

County commissioners voted Wednesday, Dec. 18, to work with Armstrong on an application for Broadband Equity Access and Deployment, or BEAD, funding, which will require a financial match from Armstrong and possibly the county.

The application to the national Telecommunications and Information Administration is due Jan. 21.

AECOM, a technical consulting firm hired by the county to assist in the service expansion, reviewed proposals submitted by internet service providers Armstrong, Brightspeed and Comcast, and recommended Armstrong.

Armstrong was “far and away” the winner in all categories examined in the review, said Any Waple of AECOM.

He said Armstrong’s proposal includes a pledge to provide service to 95% of the unserved and underserved areas of the county, and the commissioners will negotiate for expanding service to 100% of those areas.

Armstrong’s experience also helped it win the recommendation. In March, Armstrong received a $12.47 million grant to expand broadband service in the Slippery Rock Area and Moniteau school districts. That experience is among the company’s “standout strengths,” according to the recommendation.

Money for the expansion ultimately will include BEAD money, a match from Armstrong and a potential county match, Waple said.

A match of at least 30% of the project cost is required, Mark Gordon, county chief of economic development and planning, said after the meeting. He said most of the unserved and underserved areas are in the eastern part of the county.

The unserved and underserved areas are scattered throughout the county, but most are rural areas and some are in Butler and the southern part of the county, Waple said.

“The intent of the BEAD program is to get everyone served,” Waple said.

He said a second round of funding might be forthcoming because $1.1 billion might not be enough for the statewide effort.

A second round or an alternative solution might be needed to cover the 5% not covered in Armstrong’s proposal, he said.

Waple said “make ready” costs are one of the reasons expanding broadband into rural areas is expensive. Those costs are the costs of making utility poles ready to handle a new service, he said.

All three internet providers proposed using fiber technology with up to 10 gigabytes of speed, but Brightspeed’s proposal calls for covering 55% of the unserved and underserved areas and Comcast’s proposal lacks specifics on covering those areas, according to AECOM’s proposal evaluation report.

Brightspeed proposed a $12 million plan with a $1 million match from the county and leveraging funding from multiple sources, and Comcast provided minimal financial details, but assured that it would meet its matching requirement, according to the report.