Hart County commissioners on Nov. 11 heard a presentation from KCI Technologies on a roadway-assessment and asset‑management mapping system and debated how to procure the service. The presentation explained on‑the‑ground inspections rolled into GIS maps and a web dashboard that produces segment scores and photos to guide maintenance prioritization.

KCI representative Jim Withrow, a retiree of the Georgia Department of Transportation, told the board the system breaks the county’s road network into mile‑long segments, records distresses such as potholes, patches and block or load cracking, and assigns numeric scores that roll up to an overall rating. “This is web based, so it’s always interactive,” Withrow said, describing deliverables that include photos, Excel exports and a dashboard showing color‑coded segments. He told commissioners an overall rating below 60 is considered failing and that preventative treatments on roads scoring in the 70s–80s can extend pavement life several years.

Commissioners questioned technical details, including how the system classifies cracking (block vs. wheel‑path/load cracking), how many severity levels the team uses, and how frequently the assessment should be repeated. Withrow recommended redoing the assessment every three to four years and said the maps can be layered so the county can compare conditions over time.

Board members also asked about cost, deliverables and whether KCI’s role would be limited to mapping or extend to follow‑up services such as estimating patching quantities and preparing resurfacing packages. Withrow said KCI can provide a five‑, six‑ or ten‑year plan and can assist with bid packages or leave the county to act independently using the exported data.

A central point of the meeting was procurement procedure. Several commissioners raised fairness concerns about asking only KCI for a quote; others noted Hart County previously solicited bids for similar services but that some vendors declined to bid because the prior scope was unclear. The county’s purchasing policy was read into the record, and the county attorney advised the board to follow policy where sealed bids are required for certain dollar thresholds.

Toward the end of the discussion, a commissioner moved to re‑advertise the evaluation/ranking work for 30 days, specifying the PACE system or an equivalent; the motion was seconded. The chair called for a vote and members debated whether the board could simply accept prior bids or must re‑advertise with the clarified scope. The transcript contains a vote call but does not record a numerical tally or individual roll‑call in the meeting record.

The board directed staff to provide lane‑mile counts and requested a formal price so the item can return on the next meeting agenda for final action. The transcript shows extended discussion but does not document a conclusive procurement award at this meeting.

Why this matters: An independent, segment‑level condition assessment can make county road spending more transparent and help staff prioritize repairs and preventive treatments. Reissuing the procurement with a clarified scope could produce more competitive bids, but commissioners also expressed urgency about getting actionable data for the upcoming budget year.

Next steps: Staff was asked to obtain centerline miles, return cost estimates and present a rebid packet or recommendations at a future meeting; the board did not document a final contract award in this transcript.