Aransas County officials, representatives of contractor Teal and the courthouse design team spent the Feb. 21 Commissioners Court workshop debating who must pay for and approve fixes to the nearly‑finished courthouse, with the most attention on leaking windows and exterior masonry work.

The dispute centers on whether water intrusion and finish discrepancies are defects in Teal’s workmanship, design errors by the architect, or consequences of permitted substitutions that required redesign. Teal representatives said they have tested a repair for the windows that passed independent tests and asked the county and the architect to allow the same test protocol used by the City Hall project; county staff and the architect’s representatives said the architect of record must approve a testing and warranty plan before the county accepts remedial work.

Why it matters: The disagreements affect when county offices and courtrooms can occupy the building and who will pay for further testing, corrective work and outstanding contractor claims. Teal provided a list of remaining base‑scope tasks and a figure the contractor says would allow completion and turnover; the county and design team questioned parts of that accounting and pressed for more documentation and formal instructions.

Teal counsel David Paden, who opened public remarks for the contractor team, said the window leaks are a design/installation interface problem and that a solution from consultant David Nicastro has passed multiple tests. “The solution has been tested multiple times, and it is passed every time,” Paden said, adding Teal awaits formal approval from the architect and the owner to proceed. Teal and its engineer assert the original manufacturer specified in the drawings (KONE) declined to bid or service the site and that Teal selected an alternative elevator supplier; Teal argues that the contract and its subcontract language address responsibility for substitutions and schedule relief.

County project manager Justin McComb and county staff provided the court with a punch‑list and a summary of remaining tasks the county considers base scope: paving and grading, exterior finishes, storefront and AAMA 501.2 water testing at two locations, elevator inspection and certification, final cleaning and training, courtroom A/V installation and close‑out documentation. McComb said some interior rooms not affected by window work are punched out and finished, but exterior work and rooms adjacent to the affected windows remain incomplete pending resolution.

On testing protocol, Teal asked the county to adopt the same approach the City of Rockport used: implement the contractor’s repair on a subset of windows, test a percentage, and if they pass allow rollout. Teal said two proof‑of‑concept windows on the courthouse and two on City Hall had passed. County staff and the architect (PGAL) indicated the architect of record must approve the testing protocol and that the county can elect to run its own testing program or accept the city’s results; an architect representative noted the county, as owner, can authorize a test but should document warranty implications and approvals.

Cost, claims and schedule: Teal presented a summary of amounts it said would be needed to complete base scope work and settle outstanding contractor payouts. Teal’s breakdown cited an original contract amount of $23,615,000 and a proposed revised contract total of $25,342,176 (a roughly 7% increase). Teal also presented a single figure it said would clear retainage, unpaid pay‑applications and general‑conditions through a target completion; that figure on the contractor’s handout was $3,002,306.33 (this amount includes retainage and subcontractor claims, not all of which the parties have agreed are valid). Teal warned that continued delay increases claim amounts and general conditions. County officials asked for supporting documentation and for Teal’s detailed list to be submitted formally for review.

Masonry and EIFS: Teal and the design team disputed whether exterior brick coursing and EIFS connections are nonconforming work that should be demolished and rebuilt. Teal’s representatives said some adjustments were made in the field to match architectural directions (adjusting coursing to avoid small brick slivers under windows) and that the visual variance is not observable from ground level; they said full replacement would be time‑consuming and costly. The design team and county staff said the architect has rejected certain work before substantial completion and that, under the contract, those items must be corrected unless the owner accepts nonconforming work after independent inspection.

Elevators and substitutions: The contractor and county discussed elevator specifications. Teal representatives said the architect’s basis‑of‑design named KONE but that KONE declined to bid or service the location; Teal obtained bids from other elevator firms (TKE and Otis), and chose a supplier the contractor says met code and schedule constraints. County and design team members said the substitution required additional coordination, inspections and may have contributed to delays; Teal said contract provisions provide relief for delays caused by errors in the plans and specifications.

Next steps and dispute resolution: Teal and the county reiterated interest in mediation and settlement if possible; Teal said a City‑level mediation is scheduled for later in the month and proposed a similar mediator for the county if needed. Contractor counsel urged the court to follow the contract remedies — including the owner’s right to hire independent inspectors under Section 13.4 of the contract — and to consider the Texas statutes the parties referenced during the meeting when determining litigation venue.

Votes at a glance: The court voted to convene a closed session under the Texas Open Meetings Act to consult with counsel about contemplated litigation and settlement related to the Downtown Anchor Project; the motion carried on recorded ayes. The court later reconvened in open session and adjourned. (See Actions section for recorded roll calls and votes.)

The parties agreed to exchange formal documents and to send the county a written package with the city’s testing protocol and the contractor’s proposed details for the window fix; county staff asked that Teal and the architect provide the detailed testing and warranty language in writing by the next business day so the court can consider a directive.

If the architect approves the proposed test‑and‑warranty approach and the tests pass, county staff said the contractor may resume exterior remedial work and finish remaining interior close‑out tasks. If not, the county and contractor may pursue mediation or legal remedies as provided in the contract.