Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Road Materials Fuel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scurry County reviews bids for fuel, asphalt and hauling; staff presents multiple vendor prices, no formal award shown
Summary
County staff reviewed bids and pricing for fuel, asphalt materials and hauling services, presenting vendor prices and delivery/charge terms. The transcript records detailed price quotes and hauling terms but does not show a formal award or vote in the provided excerpt.
Commissioners reviewed a series of vendor bids and quoted prices for fuel, asphalt materials and hauling services during the meeting. County staff presented per-gallon and per-ton prices, delivery charges and carrier fees, and discussed vendor responses across multiple precincts.
Staff read prices from vendors including firms identified in the transcript as Ergon and others; examples in the staff presentation include CSS, CRS material codes and plant and delivered prices (for example, staff said “CSS 18460 is a dollar 14 at Lubbock, Dollar 34 delivered” and “CRS2 is $2.35 at the plant, 255 delivered”), a pump-and-hose charge of $100 per load and a potential up-to-$200 charge for equipment ordered but not used. The transcript also includes per-ton bids for materials in multiple precincts, with named bidders such as Bill Moore, Merklin and Slaton quoted at per-ton rates (for example, “Merklin is $23.50 a ton for all 4 precincts, and Slaton is $25.15 a ton for all 4 precincts”).
Staff also discussed hauling/deconstruction bids with per-ton and per-mile terms; one bid provided seven trucks averaging 22–23 tons per load and used a rate described as “30¢ a mile per ton at 40 miles or less, 25¢ a mile per ton at 41 miles or more.” Other bids presented a per-ton-per-mile rate (one excerpt said “24¢ per ton per mile”) and a carrier staging/merger rate. In some cases staff noted a vendor did not submit a bid for certain grades.
Commissioners asked clarifying questions about delivered prices and whether quoted figures were per loaded mile; staff clarified that certain bids cited delivered prices versus plant prices and that some bids were for specified load sizes (for example, samples in the transcript referenced loads of 5,000 gallons for some fuel products). The transcription contains garbled phrases in places; the meeting excerpt does not show a formal motion or vote to award these bids in the provided lines.
Because the transcript excerpt contains extensive numeric detail and some garbling, county staff and commissioners will need to confirm final award decisions and exact pricing in the official bid tabulation and meeting minutes.
