Aransas County accepts architects certification of cause in courthouse dispute; court pauses action, orders workshop and legal opinion

Aransas County Commissioners Court on Wednesday voted 4-1 to accept a written certification from the project architect that, in the architects view, there is cause to terminate Teal Constructions contract on the downtown courthouse project, but the court voted to take no immediate termination action and instead to pursue further talks and legal review.

The certifications acceptance formalizes the architects position that work performed to date includes elements the architect found noncompliant with the contract. County Attorney Adela told the court that accepting the letter is legally significant but does not itself require termination or other specific action; the court may still choose from several contract remedies.

The vote followed extended public comment and presentations from project participants and county advisers. Michael Miller, vice president of Teal Construction, told the court the firm had delivered savings in the original bid and then invested in fixes when problems appeared, and warned that terminating the contract now would push the county into costly litigation and leave the partly finished building hard to complete. "We paid taxes here too, and we are willing participants in any efforts to save money without compromising the integrity of the project," Miller said during public comment. Justin McComb, Teals South Texas director, added that it had taken as long as "528 days for the owner and architect to approve a change request." John Murray, identified in public comment as representing Teal, offered that if the county approved a long-outstanding elevator change order and accepted Teals window solution, Teal could complete the windows and interiors in six to eight weeks and begin negotiations on outstanding claims.

Mark Williams, the countys program manager for the project, presented a list of deficiencies and delays documented during inspections, including concerns about truss anchors, a standing-seam roof removal and rework, inadequate mortar bed for heavy stone (requiring additional poured concrete), inconsistent brick coursing that led to rework, and multiple window installation issues that produced failed water-infiltration tests. Williams said retainage and monies held for incomplete or noncompliant work totaled $1,521,493.37.

Adela, the county attorney, told the court the contract grants specific authorities to the architect and construction manager and that the architects sealed letter carries legal weight: "When the architect writes a letter, it is legally significant. Their stamp, their seal, their certification to practice in the state of Texas, and their liability insurance is all on the line once they put something in writing." She said accepting the architects letter is a discrete decision the court may make without immediately pursuing termination, bond claims or litigation, and she offered to prepare a written legal opinion outlining options available under the contract.

Judge Garza and several commissioners emphasized the courts goal of completing the courthouse in a fiscally responsible way that protects taxpayers. After discussion the court adopted three linked actions: (1) accept the architects certification of cause for termination but take no immediate termination action (vote 4-1); (2) schedule a workshop with the architect, Teal, the construction manager and other parties to pursue negotiated solutions and gather numbers for outstanding claims and completion timelines (unanimous motion to schedule the workshop); and (3) direct the county attorneys office to prepare a legal opinion and draft a statement for the court summarizing contractual options (unanimous).

The courts acceptance vote was recorded as: Commissioner Cheney Aye; Commissioner Castelline Aye; Commissioner Russo No; Commissioner Dutnik Aye; Judge Garza Aye. Following that vote one commissioner moved that the court convene a workshop to try to let Teal finish the job; the court set the workshop for the coming week if Teal is prepared to participate and instructed staff to supply cost and schedule numbers in advance.

Teal representatives repeatedly appealed to the court to allow the company to finish work they said is nearly complete and would be faster and cheaper than termination and re-bid. Multiple local residents and contractors who spoke during the public-comment portion urged completion rather than termination, citing insurance concerns and the difficulty of finding a contractor willing to assume liability for another firms work.

The architect and program manager urged caution, documenting several areas the architect marked noncompliant and asserting the contractor had not provided sufficient supervision and quality control. Williams said some window assemblies ultimately passed a recent AMAA 502 pressure test on Jan. 22, 2025, but multiple window units remained untested and the architect questioned whether the fixes were long-term remedies or short-term measures to pass tests.

The court went into a closed session earlier in the meeting under Texas Government Code 551.071 to consult with counsel on potential litigation and contractual remedies related to the courthouse project; the closed session preceded the open-session motions.

The courts next step is the planned workshop; the county attorney will produce a written legal opinion listing options and the factual contract background for the courts use at that meeting.

The decision to accept the architects certification but defer termination leaves multiple paths open: negotiated completion with Teal, enforcement of contractual corrections with Teal bearing the cost, or pursuing bond or insurance claims and replacement contracting. The court did not select among those pathways on Wednesday.

Ending: The workshop will aim to identify a path to occupancy or a decision point for a formal replacement process; court staff were directed to assemble outstanding change-request and claim numbers for the workshop.