Jim Wells County Commissioners Court on Aug. 22 debated whether to award a countywide road-assessment contract to a single firm or first solicit bids, then tabled the item and directed staff to go to request-for-proposals. The issue drew extended discussion about how assessment results would be used and whether road funding would be shifted among precincts.

The court’s debate centered on a presentation about a proposed assessment that would inventory and rank county roads by condition and traffic, then produce prioritized lists for reconstruction. Commissioners and the county judge said the study could help target scarce reconstruction dollars, produce FEMA cost documentation after disasters and create a multi‑year prioritization plan. A vendor quoted in earlier outreach was described in court as having proposed up to $90,000; the county had not published a contract amount on the agenda.

The proposal as posted named Vasela (listed in the agenda as a sole-source corporation). Commissioners and the county auditor said Vasela was not the only vendor that offers road-assessment services, and that competitive procurement (RFP/RFQ) was appropriate. One commissioner said a different firm had already submitted a letter claiming the same capability. Another commissioner said he had received quotes well below $90,000.

Several commissioners also raised concerns about how the county would use the assessment. Some said they wanted counts and condition scores by precinct to defend requests for per‑precinct funding; others worried an overall county prioritization could be used to shift money away from individual precinct allocations. The county judge said the assessment was an “investment” that could justify larger reconstruction requests but supported going to bids so the court could compare proposals and prices.

After debate the court approved a motion to table the item and bring back a procurement to solicit competitive proposals. The motion carried; the court instructed staff to place a procurement item on a future agenda for RFPs and vendor comparisons.

The item will return to a future commissioners’ court agenda with an RFP recommended for publication and additional vendor cost details.

Ending: The road‑assessment discussion ended with a clear procurement direction — no sole‑source award today. Commissioners asked staff to prepare an RFP and to return pricing and scope information so the court can select a vendor and decide how to structure precinct-level reporting.