McAllen ISD board hears legal guidance on hiring construction manager agents for $335 million bond

McAllen Independent School District trustees met on June 18, 2026, to receive legal and practical guidance on hiring construction manager agents and other delivery methods for projects funded by a districtwide $335 million bond approved by voters in May.

Attorney David Hansen, representing Wardell, Hansen, Powell & Munoz, P.C., told the board that a construction manager agent is an adviser, not a builder: "they are an advisor, strictly an advisor," and by statute CMAs are prohibited from self-performing work or signing subcontracts. Hansen said CMAs owe a fiduciary duty to the governmental entity and that their contract must clearly define the limits of their authority, particularly regarding money and approvals.

Hansen reviewed statutory constraints that shape procurement for school construction. He cited the Texas Government Code procurement rules for construction services under Chapter 2269 and the district's obligations under the Education Code provision referenced in the presentation, noting that construction services above $100,000 must follow the government-code methods. He emphasized the required sequence for project procurement: hire the design professional (architect or engineer) first, then retain a CMA for that specific project during design; a district may enter a master CMA agreement earlier but cannot assign a CMA to a particular project until the district has hired the design professional for that project.

On practical duties, Hansen outlined the CMA's role in pre-construction and construction phases: producing independent cost estimates at schematic and subsequent design stages, creating and updating project schedules, conducting value engineering during design (not after bids), coordinating bidding and bidder outreach, monitoring pay applications as an observer rather than an inspector, keeping daily logs and monthly progress reports, and assisting with documentation for claims and change-order negotiations. He stressed that latent defects and failures to build to plans remain the contractor's responsibility, though a CMA that negligently certifies work could face claims for professional negligence.

Trustees pressed for clear, project-level documentation. One trustee asked the administration to provide a memo for each of the roughly 30 bond projects explaining the chosen procurement method, why it was selected, how bids will be structured to protect taxpayers, identified risks and mitigation plans, and clearly defined roles for the district, architect, and any CMA. The board also discussed examples from recent work: the UTRGV collegiate campus used a design-build delivery because prototype plans existed and time constraints favored that approach.

On selection practice, Hansen walked the board through Texas professional-services procurement: rank firms by qualifications first (price is negotiated second), document rankings publicly (signed ranking sheets), and consider expanded scoring ranges (he suggested a 1,000-point scale) to reduce ties. He recommended that firms with adverse litigation histories be penalized in scoring and that all negotiations and delegations be reflected in public motions and board policy.

Next steps recorded in the workshop: trustees asked administration to provide the requested project-by-project memos and to ensure future presentations include architects/contractors when budgets or design decisions require board approval. The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn, moved and seconded by trustees and declared adjourned at 7:29 p.m.

Why it matters: The district's procurement choices will shape schedule, cost and accountability for the bond program. Hansen's guidance clarifies legal ordering, contract design points and oversight tools the board can use to reduce the risk of budget overruns and procurement disputes.