Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Commissioners award round-two concrete and labor bids for county roads after debate over specifications
Loading...
Summary
Lavaca County Commissioners on record awarded multiple round-two concrete and labor contracts for county roads after commissioners debated differing bid specifications and paid-for extra work to strengthen certain crossings.
Lavaca County Commissioners awarded round-two concrete and labor contracts for multiple county roads during the July 2025 commissioners court meeting, selecting different low and mid-range bidders depending on project specifications and traffic needs.
The contracts cover work on several county roads across precincts. For County Road 302 (a higher-traffic route now seeing increased oilfield traffic), the court accepted L & J Concrete’s mid-range bid of $17,008.50 after a precinct commissioner said L & J would place rebar closer together and add a 40-foot bottom to a culvert to reduce wash-out risk. For County Road 320 and County Road 307 commissioners accepted Yansky Sand and Gravel’s low bids of $8,700 and $4,800, respectively. Several other roads were awarded to Jansky (also spelled Yansky on the record), JRC Concrete and others as read on the record; the court read a roll call of each awarded bid before voting.
The discussion included an exchange about inconsistent bid specifications. One commissioner cautioned that the process can resemble an “apples and oranges” comparison when bidders propose different scopes; the precinct that advocated for the higher-priced bid said the added expense was justified by stronger reinforcement and a better long-term result. "I know how the water is on those roads, and I want to pay a little more to get it get more done," a commissioner said when explaining the choice to accept the higher-priced but more robust proposal for one road.
A motion to award the round-two contracts as read was made by the commissioner for Precinct 3 and seconded by the commissioner for Precinct 1; the motion passed by voice vote. The court directed staff to finalize contracts consistent with the specifications cited in the accepted bids.
Commission staff and commissioners noted that bidders inspected projects together and had the opportunity to prepare proposals, but commissioners asked staff to ensure future bid solicitations better standardize required specifications to avoid mismatched offers.
The court’s approval covered a package of projects across precincts rather than a single ordinance; the clerk will include the full list of bid amounts and vendors in the official minutes and contract files.
