The Decatur County Commissioners approved two contracts on Sept. 26 after reviewing sealed bids for chip‑and‑seal pavement work and emulsified asphalt supplies for 2025.

County staff opened five sealed bids for materials and chip‑and‑seal work, including offers from Terry Asphalt Materials, SC Construction and Materials, Pavement Solutions, Asphalt Materials (trade name shown in bid packet), and Evergreen Roadworks. The highway department solicitation requested about 100,000 gallons of AE‑90s (for single chip seal), roughly 20,000 gallons of AEPL prime (for prime applications), and an optional AEF fog application. Some bidders included hourly tanker stand‑by rates and slightly different gallonages for optional items.

Commissioners approved the low compliant oil bid for emulsified asphalt (listed in the packet as “Asphalt Materials”) for 2025 work following a motion and second; the motion passed by voice vote. Separately, after staff recalculated totals and compared square‑yard application rates, the board approved SC Construction and Materials to perform the county’s 2025 chip‑and‑seal work; that motion also passed by voice vote.

Bids and notable figures in the packet included SC Construction and Materials (total bid listed as $216,040), Evergreen Roadworks (total listed as $253,050), and a Terry Asphalt Materials total figure read aloud as $256,100. One vendor, Pavement Solutions, supplied per‑unit application rates but did not include a line‑item total in the copy before the board. Several bidders supplied per‑gallon prices for calendar year 2025 and higher rates for calendar year 2026; the AE‑90 price was listed at about $2.19–$2.21 per gallon in some bids and at $2.209 in another. Tanker hourly standby rates ranged from $100 to $150 per hour beyond an agreed two‑hour free window, billed in quarter‑hour increments. The bid specifications call for material certifications and compliance documentation for the specified emulsions.

Commissioners and staff discussed how tanker staging and on‑site storage tanks affect effective hourly charges, whether a missing AEPL prime price made a bid incomplete, and how to compare bids when totals were omitted. Staff confirmed that some bidders provided totals while others did not, requiring county staff to recalculate to identify the lowest compliant bidder for each procurement lot. The board approved both awards by voice vote; no roll‑call tallies were recorded in the meeting minutes.

The commissioners directed staff to proceed with contract paperwork and to ensure compliance documentation called for in section 5 of the bid packet was supplied before proceeding with work next season.