Texas law on any date › Attorney General opinions
Attorney General Opinion KP-0253
Issued April 08, 2019 · request RQ0281KP
Re: Whether the Texas Transportation Commission is authorized to enter into a facility agreement under the North Tarrant Express Comprehensive Development Agreement
Cites: TN §223.201, TN §223.209, TN §223.20l, TN §1, TN §2013, TN §2.21, TN §223.2012, TN §223.203
The Attorney General's page · official PDF
The Honorable Bob Hall
Chair, Committee on Agriculture
Texas State Senate
Post Office Box 12068
Austin, Texas 78711-2068
The Honorable Lois Kolkhorst
Chair, Committee on Public Health
Texas State Senate
Post Office Box 12068
AusJin, Texas 78711-2068
KEN PAXTON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
May 24, 2019
Opinion No. KP-0253
Re: Whether
the
Texas
Transportation
Commission is authorized to enter into a facility
agreement under the North Tarrant Express
Comprehensive
Development
Agreement
(RQ-0281-KP)
Dear Senator Hall and Senator Kolkhorst:
You ask whether the Texas Department of Transportation (the "Department") "has legal
authority to enter into another facility agreement under the North Tarrant Express Comprehensive
Development Agreement ... when authority to enter into such contracts expired on August 31,
2017,"1 per Senate Bill 1730 ("S.B. 1730"), passed by the Eighty-third Legislature.2
Chapter 223, subchapter E of the Transportation Code governs the Department's authority
to enter. into comprehensive development agreements with a private entity to design, develop,'
finance, construct, maintain, repair, operate, extend, or expand certain highway projects. See
generally TEX. TRANSP. CODE §§ 223.201-.209.
The Legislature originally authorized the
Department to enter into comprehensive development agreements in· 2005 for a limited time
period.3 You note that S.B. 1730, enact~d by the Eighty-third Legislature in 2013, extinguished
the Department's authority to enter into any new comprehensive development agreements after
August 31, 2017. Request Letter at l; S.B. 1730 (amending TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 223.20l(i)).
However, S.B. 1730 did not invalidate agreements entered into prior to that date. See S.B. 1730.
The Department entered into the North Tarrant Express Comprehensive Development
Agreement on June 23, 2009, and that agreement remains operational. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE
1Letter from Honorable Bob Hall, Chair, Senate Comm. on Agric., & Honorable Lois Kolkhorst, Chair,
Senate Comm. on Pub. Health, to Honorable Ken Paxton, Tex. Att'y Gen. at 1 (Apr. 2, 2019)
https://www2.texasattomeygeneral.gov/opinion/requests~for-opinion-rqs ("Request Letter").
2See Act of May 23, 2013, 83d Leg., R.S., ch. 1234, § 1, 2013 Tex. Gen. Laws 3113, 3114.
3See Act of May 29, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 281, § 2.21, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 778, 790-91.
The Honorable Bob Hall
The Honorable Lois Kolkhorst
Page 2
(KP-0253)
§ 223.2012(a). In 2011, the Legislature enacted section 223.2012 of the Transportation Code,
providing specific authority and direction to the Department for the North Tarrant Express Project.
See id. In that section, the Legislature authorized the comprehensive development agreement to
"provide for negotiating and entering into facility agreements for future phases or segments of the
project at the times that the department considers advantageous to the department."
Id.
§ 223.2012(b ). Thus, the Legislature acknowledged that while the Department entered into the
comprehensive development agreement in 2009, it would need ongoing authority to enter into
facility agreements for specific phases of the project in the future.4 Through section 223.2012(b)
of the Transportation Code, the Legislature granted the Department legal authority to enter into
facility agreements under the North Tarrant Express Comprehensive Development Agreement
when the Department considers it advantageous to do so. See id.
In addition to asking about authority to enter into facility agreements, you explain that the
Department is using "a change order to the original facility agreement to expand the scope of
work." Request Letter at 1. You question whether the Department's procedure is a permissible
means to expand the scope of work under an existing facility agreement. Id. at 3. Chapter 223,
subchapter E, does not discuss change orders specifically; but as discussed above, the Department
possesses ongoing authority to enter into new facility agreements for specific phases of the project
within the scope of the comprehensive development agreement. Furthermore, the Legislature
authorized the Department to "negotiate any matter in a comprehensive development agreement
for the North Tarrant Express project that the department considers advantageous to the
department." TEX. TRANSP. CODE§ 223.2012(e). Given this broad authority, a court would likely
conclude that the Department may use a change order to expand the scope of work within a facility
agreement as long as that work is encompassed in the scope of work under the comprehensive
development agreement. 5 See id. § 223.201(£)(3) (authorizing the Department to enter into a
comprehensive development· agreement for "the Interstate Highway 35W project in Tarrant
County from Interstate Highway 30 to State Highway 114").
You also question whether the Department is authorized to enter into or change terms to a
facility agreement without engaging in competitive bidding. Request Letter at 3. The Legislature
required the Department to engage in competitive bidding procedures when entering into the
comprehensive development agreement. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 223.203(a) (requiring the
Department to "use a competitive procurement process that provides the best value"). But the
Legislature expressly exempted the Department from competitive procurement processes for the
subsequent facility agreements with the project developer under the comprehensive development
agreement:
4Any facility agreements the Department enters into "for the North Tarrant Express project must terminate
on or before June 22, 2061." TEX. TRANSP. CODE§ 223.2012(d).
51n November of 2018, the Department requested a legal sufficiency review of the North Tarrant Express
Segment 3C Change Order and Amended and Restated Facility Agreement for the North Tarrant Express Segments
3A, 3 B, and 3C Facility by the Office of the Attorney General, and this office determined that both were legally
sufficient.
The Honorable Bob Hall
The Honorable Lois Kolkhorst
Page 3
(KP-0253).
The department is not required to use any further competitive
procurement process to enter into one or more related facility
agreements with the developer or an entity controlled by, to be
controlled by, or to be under common control with the developer
under the comprehensive development agreement for the North
Tarrant Express project.
Id.§ 223.2012(c). Thus, when the Department enters into or changes terms to a facility agreement
with the project developer, the Legislature does not require that it use competitive bidding.
The Honorable Bob Hall
The Honorable Lois Kolkhorst
Page 4
(KP-0253)
SUMMARY
By operation of section 223.2012(b) of the Transportation
Code, the Legislature granted the Department of Transportation
authority to enter into facility agreements under the North Tarrant
Express Comprehensive Development Agreement when the
Department considers it advantageous to do so.
A court would likely conclude that the Department may use
a change order to expand the scope of work within a facility
agreement as long as that work is encompassed in the scope of work
under the comprehensive development agreement.
Pursuant to subsection 223.2012(c) of the Transportation
Code, the Legislature does not require the Department. to use a
competitive procurement process to enter into a facility agreement
with the developer or an entity controlled by, to be controlled by, or
to be under common control with the developer under the
comprehensive development agreement for the North Tarrant
Express project.
JEFFREY C. MATEER
First Assistant Attorney General
RYAN L. BANGERT
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel
VIRGINIA K. HOELSCHER
Chair, Opinion Committee
Very truly yours,
KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas
Attorney General opinions are persuasive, not binding on courts, and answer questions of law, not fact. Text extracted from the official PDF. Not legal advice.