Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road Maintenance Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners accept multiple road‑materials bids, reject and plan to rebid asphalt products
Summary
The court accepted several vendors for road materials but said it will rebid hot mix, oil sand, coal mix and bagged asphalt after the county did not receive a competitive asphalt bid.
Henderson County Commissioners Court approved awards for a range of fiscal‑year 2025 road materials but directed staff to rebid several asphalt products after the county received no competitive bulk asphalt bids.
County staff presented bid results for multiple materials. Commissioners voted to accept bids for crushed concrete, flex base and pea gravel from Aggregate Haulers; crushed asphalt, crushed concrete and rock from Big City; emulsions and road seal products from Ergon (with P Squared identified as a secondary source for certain fog‑seal products); crude oil from Blazer; refined road oil from Brine & Brine; and stabilizer oil from P Squared. The court also accepted recycled asphalt ("wrap") bids from Big City for use where appropriate.
Staff told the court they received no asphalt plant bids for bulk hot mix; one expected supplier did not respond in time and later reported the solicitation email was in its email trash. Because that supplier is the county's typical local asphalt source and there were active purchase orders tied to ARPA funding, staff recommended rebidding the asphalt line items rather than awarding to a noncompetitive bidder. The court agreed and directed staff to reissue bids for hot mix, oil sand, coal mix and bagged asphalt.
A commissioner summarized the accepted awards during the motion, listing vendors and product groupings in open session. The court voted unanimously to accept the recommended awards for the listed vendors and to rebid the asphalt products that lacked competitive responses. Commissioners noted they would separately solicit hauling/trucking bids to ensure delivery capacity for materials purchased from more distant suppliers.
Staff said they would return with a refined line‑by‑line acceptance and that some items could be grouped for award. The court did not provide dollar totals for all line items in the public discussion; the transcript lists individual vendor bids and notes a $57,000 savings by choosing the low bidder on the HVAC contract discussed separately.
