3Company to repair damage to and otherwise upgrade Ozen High School’s field lighting.
BISDcontracted with A&A to repair the football field’s lights for $786,008. BISD separatelycontracted with Walker to repair the softball and baseball fields’ lights for $1,236,000.
Walker completed the contracted-for work at Ozen’s softball and baseball fields in April2009, and billed BISD for the agreed-upon price of $1,236,000. That work was not within thescope of the maintenance contract awarded to Walker in August 2008.
Counts 1, 4, 5, 6, 17 and 18 are premised on the incorrect notion that the maintenancecontract applied to Walker’s work at Ozen’s softball and baseball fields. The allegation thatWalker submitted false material costs in the amount of $647,000 to BISD is, therefore, notrelevant. Submission of $647,000 of material costs, false or not, would not have pumped up theamount that BISD owed Walker. The work at Ozen’s fields was provided for a flat fee, not on acost-plus basis as stated in the Indictment.Consequently, that work was not subject to the cost-plus-ten-percent terms of the maintenance contract.The TEA’s view of Walker’s Ozen field contract is consistent with the view set out here.The TEA did not take issue with BISD’s assertion that the Ozen field contract “did not fallwithin the scope” of the maintenance contract. Instead, the TEA concluded that BISD shouldhave put the Ozen field work out for bid rather than awarding it to Walker as it did.
Exhibit 1—Excerpt from BISD Board’s Minutes.If the TEAbelieved that the maintenance contract required Walker to complete the Ozen field work on analready established cost-plus basis, the TEA would not have found that the same work should
Exhibit 2—Contract for Ozen’s lights and related documents.
In response to a Texas Education Administration (TEA) investigation into this matter, BISDexpressly stated, “Although Walker’s Electric had been awarded the [maintenance contract] onAugust 21, 2008, the light pole replacement and related work did not fall within the scope of thatcontract.” Exhibit 3—Letter from BISD, p. 3.
Exhibit 4—TEA Final Investigative Report.
Case 1:11-cr-00067-RC -KFG Document 71 Filed 11/23/11 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 672