HUNT COUNTY, Texas — The Hunt County Commissioner’s Court voted Jan. 14 to award RFP 268-26 for construction of an I‑30 administrative facility to the lowest-priced responsive proposer identified in the agenda (named there as Integrity Contractors) and authorized execution of contract documents consistent with staff recommendations.

County staff led the procurement presentation. Gary, who described himself as having led the source‑selection process, told the court the bid process was competitive: 22 contractors attended a pre-bid conference, five sealed bids were received, and two were removed as noncompliant or outside the competitive range, leaving three compliant bidders. "The award is for $7,700,000," Gary said, and he compared that to a recent architect estimate of $13,300,000, saying the county would therefore pay about $5.5 million less than the estimate.

On funding, Gary said ARPA and related federal funds would cover roughly $5.1 million, and earlier federal funds had paid $3.2 million for the land. That leaves an expected county responsibility of roughly $2.6 million from capital improvement funds; when a commissioner asked whether that would trigger a tax increase, Judge Stovall replied no and explained that funds had been planned and set aside in prior capital budgets.

Gary also described standard industry practice to hold a contingency — transcribed as $1,100,000 (15%) — in county accounts, encumbered for unforeseen scope changes and only spent after review and demonstration of need.

After discussion, an unidentified speaker moved to approve issuing the contract to the low proposer (agenda name: Integrity Contractors) and the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote; the transcript records “Aye” and the judge announced, “Motion carries.” The transcript contains inconsistent spellings and numbers for the contractor name and contract totals in places. The agenda identifies the proposer as Integrity Contractors; portions of the spoken record refer to the award with an alternate rendering of the name (transcribed as "Tegrity").

Why it matters: the award advances a multi‑department county facility intended to host voter administration, emergency management/EOC capacity and several county services, and it shifts much of the project cost to federal ARPA and other funds, limiting the county’s direct expenditure to the capital-improvement balance.

Next steps: the judge was authorized to execute contract documents; staff will proceed with contract execution and project planning. The court recessed into executive session later in the meeting.