Contracts approved without terms in the public packet

Key facts

• Vendor approvals that showed the board a dollar amount, 2019 to 2026: about 1 in 4¹
• Largest payee approved without a dollar amount: the food-service company, about $33.7 million paid¹
• Big payees never named in a board packet: 17, about $155 million²

In short

When the board approves a vendor, the packet often shows no price. Only about 1 in 4 vendor approvals we checked showed a dollar amount.¹ Some big payees never show up in a board packet at all.² That doesn’t mean anything was wrong. It means the packet often doesn’t show the board the total ahead of time.

The terms may exist in documents that were not posted with the public packet. This page is about what the public could see, not a claim that terms were missing.

What this page is about

When the board approves a contract, the packet usually explains what it is for. Often it does not say how much it will cost.

Think of saying “yes, hire that plumber” without asking for a quote. It might be fine. The plumber may charge a normal hourly rate. But you don’t know the total until the bill comes.

Approvals with no price

We looked at 86 board approvals of outside vendors from 2019 to 2026. We left out building contracts and government partners. Only 21 of them (24%) showed the board a dollar amount.¹

Some vendors got paid a lot after approvals with no amount shown. These are totals paid from July 2020 to June 2026:¹

Vendor	Paid	What they do
SFE (school meals)	$33.7 million	Runs school food service
Pfluger Architects	$17.3 million	Architect
Hellas	$11.9 million	Sports turf
MEP Engineering	$7.5 million	Building engineering
Sodexo	$6.65 million	Ran school food service before SFE

Examples

• Sports turf. In October 2023, the board picked Hellas for baseball and softball turf at five campuses. Hellas won the scoring by 0.67 points out of about 132. The item showed no dollar amount. Hellas was paid about $11.9 million from 2020-21 to 2025-26. That total includes work approved before and apart from this item.³
• Money advisor. The district’s financial advisor was picked in 2015. In March 2020, on consent, the contract was changed to have no end date. The packet said bidding is “not a legal requirement.” It was approved again in January 2026, with a second advisor added.⁴
• Efficiency audit. In May 2026, on consent, a state-required efficiency audit (about $18,000) was approved. It went to the same firm that does the district’s yearly financial audit. The item stated no search for other firms.⁵
• Internal audit. In September 2023, the board picked an internal-audit firm. The item said the cost was “contingent upon successful contract negotiation.” The firm was paid about $833,000 over three years.⁶
• Vehicle leases. A November 2024 packet said a lease program “is being utilized for all White Fleet vehicle purchases.” The lease company was paid about $2.05 million in 2024-25 and 2025-26, about $1.46 million more than the roughly $593,000 the board approved in separate items.⁷

Big payees never named in a packet

We searched every board packet for the district’s largest business payees. Seventeen of them, paid about $155 million from 2020-21 to 2025-26, never appear as a vendor the board approved. They include CDW, a technology reseller (about $50.0 million), and Netsync, a technology company (about $24.1 million). Others are Rush, a vehicle dealer (about $19.5 million); and Barron & Adler, a law firm (about $5.1 million).²

New records, and what they still do not show

A new district contract-award export lists MGT Impact Solutions on the TIPS 220601 consulting cooperative award. It also lists the company on technology and mapping vehicles from three other purchasing groups. These are co-op routes, not proof of a direct contract with the district, and the export has no dollar amounts.⁸

The separate historical contract register has 1,726 rows but no dollar-amount field. Its seven entries for American Constructors in fiscal year 2025 are mostly missing dates. That leaves the larger construction agreements and prices unclear.⁹

The district’s side

• Many purchases don’t need a board vote. Texas lets districts buy through state purchasing groups (co-ops) that already did the bidding. Staff can buy this way under the board’s rules.²
• Some prices can’t be known up front. Meal costs depend on how many meals are served. Architect fees follow a fee schedule. Hourly audits follow a yearly plan.¹
• Some services don’t have to be bid. School purchasing rules do not cover professional services, such as accountants, architects, engineers, lawyers and fiscal agents. Accountants, architects and engineers must be picked on qualifications, not price. Financial advisors can be hired outside the bidding rules.⁴¹⁰
• Picking the yearly auditor is allowed. State law expressly lets the board use its yearly auditor for the efficiency audit. Whether using the same firm for the efficiency audit is a good idea is a fair question, not a broken rule.⁵

What we don’t know yet

• The executed contracts themselves, with prices and end dates. New award and register records help identify some vehicles but do not replace those agreements.
• How much the district buys through co-ops each year. The yearly reports show fees only.²
• Whether the audit committee’s yearly plans set a budget for internal audit.

Questions to ask

• Which purchases made through cooperative contracts have a board approval or a published price?
• Where can the signed agreements, current terms and purchase totals be found?
• Does the contract register include every agreement, and how often is it reconciled?

Changes to this page

• Nov. 5, 2026: We added what the new contract and award records show, and their limits. The page still describes only what the public packet showed.

Go deeper

• Consent votes · Who builds our schools

Footnotes

1. Our review of 86 non-building, non-government vendor approvals in board packets, 2019–2026 (our dataset). Examples: packet 624170 page 73; packet 677942 page 5; packet 738588 page 78. Payments are totals by vendor from the district’s payments register, fiscal years 2021–2026. SFE was approved 7 times without a dollar amount. Paid totals are net of voided checks. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

2. Our search of the text of every board packet for the largest business payees, fiscal years 2021–2026. Of about $635 million paid to the top business payees, $154.5 million (24.3%) went to 17 that never appear in a packet as an approved vendor (our math, net of voided checks). The ~$635 million base is approximate. Co-op purchase reports under Texas Education Code §44.0331 show fees only. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

3. Board packet, Oct. 5, 2023, page 509: turf award scoring (132.00 vs. 131.33). Packet page 509. Passed 5–0 as an action item. Price may have been scored inside the matrix; the contract value is not in the board record. ↩

4. Board packet, March 26, 2020, page 108 (packet), and Jan. 22, 2026, page 104 (packet). Advisor fees are paid from bond issuance costs, not the regular payments register. ↩ ↩²

5. Board packet, May 21, 2026, page 150: efficiency audit under Texas Education Code §11.184, about $18,000; §11.184(e) lets the board pick its annual auditor for it. Passed 6–0 on consent. Packet page 150. ↩ ↩²

6. Board packet, Sept. 7, 2023, pages 48–50: internal-audit award (3 responses). Packet page 49. Paid $70,745 (2023-24), $299,805 (2024-25) and $462,113 (2025-26), total $832,663 (payments register). ↩

7. Board packet, Nov. 7, 2024, page 96 (packet); 2020 lease approval, packet 412494 page 552. Paid $186,093 (2024-25) and $1,274,186 (2025-26). ↩

8. District public records, contract-award export: active entries for MGT Impact Solutions include TIPS 220601 (consulting and related services), TIPS 230105 (technology), DIR-CPO-5389 (data and networking), and OMNIA LS4612 (mapping). The records are award-vehicle listings, not signed district agreements or totals paid. ↩

9. District public records, historical contract register: 1,726 rows, with no dollar-amount column. Seven rows name American Constructors for fiscal year 2025. Six have blank start and end dates; the other has a start date but no end date. ↩

10. Texas Education Code §44.031(a) and (f) (school purchasing rules do not apply to professional services, “including services of an architect, attorney, certified public accountant, engineer, or fiscal agent”); Government Code §2254.002–.003 (accountants, architects, engineers, surveyors and appraisers must be picked on qualifications, not price; financial advisers and bond lawyers are not on that list). ↩