School district failed to establish unauthorized contract, even with TEA report declaring contract was executed in violation of procurement laws
Harlandale Independent School District v. Jasmine Engineering, Inc, 04-19-00638-CV, (Tex. App – San Antonio, March 11, 2020)
This is a breach of contract/immunity case where the San Antonio Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the school district’s plea to the jurisdiction.
Harlandale Independent School District (the “District”) and Jasmine Engineering, Inc. (“Jasmine”) entered into a Professional Services Agreement (“PSA”)which was amended six times. When the District terminated the contract, Jasmine sued for breach of contract. The District filed one plea to the jurisdiction challenging only the pleadings, which the 4th Court already considered and held Jasmine properly pled a waiver of immunity. On remand, the District filed another plea to the jurisdiction challenging jurisdictional facts. The plea was denied, and the District appealed.
Texas Education Agency (“TEA”) performed an investigation and issued a determination that the District violated state law procurement requirements by entering into the PSA and amending it. The District therefore asserts no valid contract was created. Section 271.152 of the Texas Local Government Code waives immunity for contracts for goods or services. Under chapter 271 a valid contract is one stating the essential terms for providing goods or services to the local governmental entity and that is properly executed on behalf of the local governmental entity. Jasmine Engineering asserts that the TEA cannot determine the validity of the PSA and, if the matter were properly before the trial court, Jasmine Engineering would argue waiver and other legal theories. While the District relies on the TEA report, the District did not advance that it also determined the PSA was not authorized. While it is true that the TEA has the statutory authority to initiate investigations into contracting matters, make findings, and impose sanctions pursuant to its findings, these powers do not imply that the TEA’s findings bind the trial court or are a jurisdictional bar. Tex. Educ. Code §39.057. And while the TEA report is attached to the plea, none of the supporting documentation was included. As a result, the evidence did not negate the pleadings and the trial court properly denied the plea.
If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel consists of Justices Martinez, Chapa, and Rios. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Martinez. Docket page with attorney information can be found here.
