Clarendon County is on the verge of signing a new contract for armed security guards, and it’s already stirring up some real questions—mostly about whether the county actually needs this, and if it’s worth the nearly $150,000 a year it’ll cost. In a mostly rural area with less than 35,000 people, that’s not exactly pocket change.
Back on November 13, 2025, county officials put out a formal Notice of Intent to Award for RFP 2025-008, picking Security Management of SC, LLC as their top choice. Out of ten bids, they scored a hefty 418 points, leaving the rest trailing behind. Coastal Security Services came in second with 333.5, and Walden Security (MSSI) pulled 304. Some bidders barely broke 100.
Now, the bidding and selection process seems to have followed the rules, but there’s a bigger issue: Does Clarendon County actually need armed guards in its public buildings?
Let’s talk about that price tag for a second—almost $150,000 a year, with the details still being hammered out. The county hasn’t released much beyond a basic scoring outline. There’s no public threat assessment or clear explanation for why armed security is suddenly a top priority. People want to know what’s driving this decision.
Critics are quick to point out that Clarendon County isn’t exactly New York or Charleston. Violent crime is low. Most county buildings aren’t packed with people all day. The Sheriff’s Office already handles courthouse and public safety duties. In other rural South Carolina counties, security usually looks pretty different—unarmed staff or bailiffs, limited coverage hours, maybe some cameras and controlled entry, and law enforcement on call if things actually go sideways. Some nearby counties, with similar populations and crime stats, barely spend anything on armed security. Instead, they put money toward infrastructure, staffing, or better emergency response.
So, what problem is this contract supposed to solve? Public safety matters, sure, but residents and critics say the response—and the spending—should match the actual need. Some big questions still hang in the air: Has there been a spike in threats or violence at county buildings? Did anyone seriously consider less expensive options, like unarmed or hybrid security? How many buildings and hours are we talking about here?
Without answers, people worry the county is copying big-city security playbooks without a real reason to back it up.
Officials did everything by the book on the paperwork side, posting notices and opening a protest window for other vendors. But checking all the boxes isn’t the same as being clear about why they’re doing this at all. For taxpayers, that’s the sticking point. Would $150,000 a year be better spent on emergency communications, courthouse tech upgrades, more deputies, or just basic county services? In a place where the budget is always tight, every dollar counts—and people want to know if this is the best use of theirs.
The deal isn’t final yet, so there’s still time for county leaders to lay out their reasoning and show why armed guards are the right call for Clarendon County—and not just an expensive solution in search of a problem.
Until then, the main question hangs in the air: Are officials responding to a real, documented threat, or are they paying to guard against something that isn’t there? For a lot of folks in Clarendon County, they’re not just curious—they feel they deserve a straight answer.
Comments (1)