Decatur County Commissioners on Sept. 26 approved two highway procurement actions: an oil supply contract with Asphalt Materials and a chip‑and‑seal contract with SC Construction and Materials for 2025 work.

The commissioners reviewed five sealed bids for asphalt products and chip‑and‑seal work. County staff presented per‑unit prices and totals from bidders including Asphalt Materials, Terry (vendor name used in the bids), SC Construction and Materials, Pavement Solutions, and Evergreen Roadworks. Commissioners and staff discussed differences in per‑gallon pricing for AES 90S (the principal chip‑seal product), AEPL prime, and optional AEF fog, and they compared bidder hourly tanker standby rates beyond a two‑hour free window.

Why it matters: the awards cover materials and surface treatment work on Decatur County roads and draw on county procurement rules; differences in unit pricing, incomplete bid lines and tanker standby costs could change net project costs and schedule.

Most important facts: staff reported the AES 90S gallonage in the bid documents as approximately 100,000 gallons (plus or minus) and AEPL prime at about 20,000 gallons (plus or minus). Asphalt Materials’ bid included AES 90S at about $2.19–$2.21 per gallon (depending on calendar year line items shown in the bid package), optional AEF and tanker hourly rates of $100–$150 per hour depending on contractor lines; Evergreen Roadworks submitted a total bid of $253,050; SC Construction and Materials’ combined unit prices produced a total of $216,040 on the county’s calculation; Pavement Solutions provided per‑yard prices but did not include a total on its submission.

Discussion and staff clarifications centered on (1) how to compare suppliers when some bidders omitted the AEPL prime line, (2) whether tanker standby time historically exceeded the two‑hour grace period and thus might add significant hourly charges, and (3) how unit prices translated into total cost across the county’s estimated quantities. Staff reported that Asphalt Materials’ submission lacked an AEPL prime price in one page but provided AES 90S and optional AEF pricing; commissioners asked staff to confirm compliance with bid specs and to ensure certifications and materials documentation matched the county requirements in the bid packet.

Votes at a glance

- Oil supply (materials): Approved — Motion to award to Asphalt Materials for the 2025 work carried after staff confirmed Asphalt Materials was the remaining compliant bidder on the oil lines. (Motion and second: not specified on the record; outcome: approved.)

- Chip‑and‑seal construction: Approved — Motion to award chip‑and‑seal work to SC Construction and Materials as the lowest responsive bidder for the county’s 2025 chip‑and‑seal program. (Motion and second: not specified on the record; outcome: approved.)

Commissioners instructed staff to finalize contract documents and to confirm any outstanding bid documentation (material certifications, insurance, bonds) before executing agreements. They also requested follow‑up on historical tanker standby occurrences so the county can estimate potential overtime billing.