Who builds our schools

Key facts

• Builders’ top-price contracts, 2019 to 2026: 46 contracts, about $528 million¹
• Share to the biggest builder: about 59%¹
• Share approved on the consent list: about 66% confirmed, possibly up to 70%²
• Cost of a new elementary school, per square foot: about $280 (2019) to $539 (2024). Our math: project budgets (with site work and furniture) ÷ square feet³

In short

Three builders get almost all of the district’s big building contracts.¹ About two-thirds of the contract dollars were approved on the consent list, without a separate vote.² For 7 of 11 recent projects, a state disclosure form was not found in the public packet or the state’s posted file; an exemption may apply. That is a question, not a finding.⁴

Why it matters to your tax bill: these contracts are paid with bond money, which you repay through the debt tax.

Related: debt · bond cash waiting · consent votes · early childhood center

How a school gets built

The district hires a builder early, while the school is still being designed. This is called a “construction manager at risk.” When the design is far enough along, the builder promises a top price. That is the “guaranteed maximum price,” or GMP. If the job costs more, the builder is supposed to cover it. Big schools often get several GMPs, one for each phase.

Think of hiring a contractor to remodel your kitchen. You pick the contractor first, then they give you a price they promise not to go over.

Who got the work

From February 2019 to April 2026, the board approved 46 GMPs worth $527.8 million.¹

Builder	GMP dollars	Share
American Constructors	$308.7 million	58.5%
Bartlett Cocke	$129.8 million	24.6%
Joeris	$86.9 million	16.5%
Braun & Butler	$2.3 million	0.4%

The district’s payments tell the same story. From July 2020 to June 2026 it paid about $230 million to American Constructors, $91 million to Bartlett Cocke and $77 million to Joeris.¹

How builders are picked

For the 2019 building program, staff scored the builders who applied. The scores, approved in January 2020, were: American Constructors 186, Bartlett Cocke 174, Joeris 160, Lee Lewis 146 and Stoddard 125.⁵ In June 2022, the district used the same scoring again for later work.⁵

For the 2023 bond, the board approved a list in August 2023. It matched builders to 14 projects: American Constructors 6, Joeris 5, Bartlett Cocke 3.⁶ Some projects on the list were marked “Design Only - Approved for Construction when funded.”⁶ That means the board picked the builder for projects that did not yet have money.

We have not found the 2023 scores.

District public records list active award rows for American Constructors, Bartlett Cocke and Joeris on LISD 24015C28, the 2023 Building Program construction-manager pool. All three show Aug. 24, 2023 to June 30, 2028. American Constructors is also on LISD 24026C28 for the early childhood center, from Dec. 14, 2023 to June 30, 2028.⁷

A separate historical contract register has seven American Constructors entries for fiscal year 2025. Those entries have no dollar amounts, and all seven lack at least one start or end date. They do not explain the amounts paid or fill in the builder scores.⁸

How prices are approved

About 66% of GMP dollars from 2019 to 2026 (possibly up to 70%) passed on the consent list, with other routine items in one vote.²

Shares are shifting

The biggest builder’s share is not growing. Joeris grew the fastest. Its approved GMPs went from $11.25 million (2019 to 2022) to $75.62 million (2023 to 2026), about 6.7 times as much. American Constructors grew about 1.5 times and Bartlett Cocke about 1.4 times.⁹

Conflict-of-interest forms (Form 1295)

Texas asks a company to file a disclosure form, called Form 1295, before signing many government contracts. The district then confirms it got the form. The state posts the confirmed forms online.¹⁰

We matched the state’s file to 11 projects from the 2023 bond that had a named builder and an approved top price. For 4 of the 11, we found a form. For the other 7, a form was not found in the public packet or the state’s posted file; an exemption may apply. We searched in October 2026.¹⁰⁴

• Joeris: 3 forms, all confirmed Oct. 6, 2025, about 23 months after the first top-price votes. Not found for Bagdad Elementary.
• American Constructors: 1 form (Leander High modernization, Aug. 2024). Not found for Vista Ridge High, the early childhood center or Hisle Elementary.
• Bartlett Cocke: not found for Cedar Park High, the mechanic shop or Grandview Hills.

What this does and does not show. It does not show anyone broke a rule. One form can cover several projects on one contract. Forms may exist on paper but not be confirmed in the state system. Some contracts may not need one. A missing record is a question to ask, not a finding.

The district’s bid portal lists 20 closed bids from 2023-2026, including the 2023 builder and architect pools. Scoring sheets are not posted publicly.¹¹

What the law requires. Architects and engineers must be picked on qualifications, not price. Builders hired as “construction manager at risk” are picked on best value, using published criteria, and the district must make its rankings public within 7 days after the award. We did not find the 2023 rankings posted. They may have been posted somewhere we did not search.¹²

The district’s side

• The district can use this method. Texas law allows “construction manager at risk” for schools, and many districts use it.
• The top price is a cap. The builder takes the risk of spending above it, except for approved changes and permitted cost allowances.
• Consent is normal. Items are often discussed at workshops before the vote. A trustee can ask to pull an item for its own vote.

Company gifts to a bond campaign

This section is separate from the disclosure-form section above on purpose. We do not claim, and the records do not show, that any contract was awarded or any form was missing because of a campaign gift. Giving to a bond committee is legal.

In 2023, a political committee called “Keeping LISD Strong” backed the bond. State filings show two district vendors, an architecture firm and an engineering/testing firm, gave to it in April 2023 ($5,000 and $3,500).¹³ Those firms were paid about $17.3 million and $1.1 million by the district from July 2020 to June 2026.¹³

None of the three builders above appears as a company donor in the filings.¹³ Some individual gifts may be linked to vendors. We have not confirmed who those givers are, so we don’t count them.

In 2026, the same committee’s largest company gift was $2,000 from an engineering firm we did not find among the district’s vendors.¹³ Neither 2023 company donor gave in 2026.¹³

What argues against reading much into this:

• None of the 14 builder slots on the August 2023 list went to a firm that gave as a company.⁶¹³
• The biggest builder ranked first in the 2020 scoring, before the 2023 bond campaign.⁵
• The fastest-growing builder, Joeris, made no company gift in the filings.⁹

What we don’t know yet

• How the 2023 builders were scored. We did not find a posted ranking, and the bid portal posts no score sheets.¹¹
• Whether Form 1295 filings exist for the 7 projects, or whether an exemption applied.
• How much each project’s price changed after approval. Change orders are not in the packets.
• Who picked the architects for five 2023 renovation projects. The August 2023 architect list names none for them.¹⁴
• We have no outside benchmark for the cost per square foot.³

Questions to ask

• How were the builders scored before the awards were approved?
• Where are the signed contracts, change orders and current prices for each building?
• Which contracts are covered by the public disclosure forms on file?

Changes to this page

• Nov. 5, 2026: We added the award numbers and register limits. We removed unnecessary company donor names.

Go deeper

• Consent votes · The 2023 bond · Early childhood center

Numbers marked “our math” are our estimates, not official figures. The notes show the inputs and the steps.

Footnotes

1. Our tally of all 46 GMPs from GMP memos and cover letters, and board minutes, Feb. 2019 to Apr. 2026 (our dataset). American Constructors $308,746,112; Bartlett Cocke $129,789,391; Joeris $86,871,981; Braun & Butler $2,347,706; total $527,755,190. Payments are totals by vendor from the district’s payments register, fiscal years 2021–2026, net of voided checks. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

2. Our math: $368,690,770 of $527,755,190 (69.9%) was on the consent agenda. correction: $348,812,542 (66.1%) is confirmed; the 69.9% figure adds one Nov. 10, 2022 GMP ($19,878,228) whose consent status is not confirmed. Minutes for each GMP are listed on the Consent votes page. ↩ ↩² ↩³

3. Leander ISD, Annual Comprehensive Financial Report 2025, Table 19 (building square feet), packet pages 245–247 (meeting 714882), and 2023 Bond status report, Dec. 11, 2025, pages 352–353 (meeting 716650). Our math: Larkspur (2019) $31,610,000 ÷ 112,980 sq ft = about $280/sq ft; Hisle (2024) $63,270,000 ÷ 117,392 sq ft = about $539/sq ft. Budgets include site work and furniture. ↩ ↩²

4. Our math: 11 projects − 4 with a form = 7 with no record found. ↩ ↩²

5. Board packet, June 23, 2022, page 172: builder scoring for the 2019 building program (approved Jan. 2020), reused for later projects. Packet page 172. ↩ ↩² ↩³

6. Board packet, Aug. 24, 2023, page 180: 2023 Building Program construction manager at risk list. Packet page 180. ↩ ↩² ↩³

7. District public records, contract-award export: active rows for LISD 24015C28, “CMAR Pool 2023 Building Program,” name American Constructors LLC, Bartlett Cocke General Contractors and Joeris General Contractors Inc, Aug. 24, 2023–June 30, 2028. American Constructors is also on LISD 24026C28, “CMAR Early Childhood Center,” Dec. 14, 2023–June 30, 2028. These records do not show award dollar values or prove that each company got an equal share. ↩

8. District public records, historical contract register: seven FY2025 entries for American Constructors. None has a dollar amount. Six have no listed start or end date; the seventh has a start date but no end date. ↩

9. Our math from the same GMP tally as note 1, by approval date: Joeris $11.25 million (2019–22) and $75.62 million (2023–26); American Constructors grew about 1.53 times and Bartlett Cocke about 1.41 times. ↩ ↩²

10. Texas Ethics Commission, Form 1295 bulk data (2021-25 and 2026-30 files, downloaded Oct. 2026), matched to the 2023 bond project list. Rows marked “LISD” for Lewisville ISD were removed. The file only shows forms the district confirmed. ↩ ↩²

11. Leander ISD bid portal (leanderisd.ionwave.net), public pages, read Oct. 28, 2026. ↩ ↩²

12. Government Code §2254.004 (architects and engineers: most qualified first, then a fair price); Government Code §2269.254(a) and (d) (construction manager at risk: best value; rankings public within 7 days after award); Education Code §44.031(a)(5). ↩

13. Texas Ethics Commission, campaign finance bulk data, filer 00086382 (“Keeping LISD Strong”), company contributions: an architecture firm, $5,000 (Apr. 10, 2023); an engineering/testing firm, $3,500 (Apr. 21, 2023); an engineering firm, $2,000 (Sept. 15, 2026). Firm names intentionally omitted: private vendor-donor detail is not needed for this point. TEC campaign finance search. Vendor payments: district payments register, totals by vendor, fiscal years 2021–2026. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

14. Board packet, Aug. 24, 2023, page 178: 2023 Building Program architect list. Packet page 178. ↩