Findings were presented to the board at a special meeting on July 8 and to the VMs at their July 9 meeting.
Westchase last conducted a Request for Proposal (RFP) for property management in 2007. Voting Members and the WCA Board agreed it was time to research what services exist as industry best practices for property management. In May 2022, the WCA Board created an exploratory committee to investigate the current standards for property management services and the state of the market in our region. Based on those findings, the board screened candidates to form an RFP Committee in April 2023. Following more than a year of exhaustive research, the RFP Committee shared its findings with the WCA Board during a special meeting on July 8, which was open to the public.
Committee members include John Mogge, RFP committee chair, RFP exploratory committee member; Theresa Lanzar, RFP committee vice-chair and recorder; Eric Holt, chair exploratory committee, RFP member; Michiel Oostenbrink, RFP member, WCA board member; Rick Goldstein, RFP member, WCA board member; Dyan Pithers, RFP member; and Russ Crooks, RFP member. Attorney Kathleen Reres with Shumaker served as an advisor.
Mogge led with an overview of the roles of the committee and the board in the RFP process. The Committee was charged with developing the RFP (bid package); gathering responses; developing criteria for evaluation; evaluating and identifying candidates; and presenting their findings to the board. The board retains the ultimate authority to review, approve, reject or modify RFP criteria and request additional information.
Mogge noted the overarching objective of the RFP is to preserve and enhance all property values.
Other objectives include:
- Proactively assess, maintain and upgrade the association’s assets.
- Offer members “state of the art” property management company services with an acceptable assessment impact.
- Maintain in-person and secure virtual membership access to the association’s functions and property managers.
- Limit the WCA’s legal liabilities and meet all statutory requirements.
The committee received interest from 13 companies who attended an open house in February. Of those, nine completed the RFP. From those nine, four were deemed fully qualified.
The committee underwent a two-step evaluation process to achieve best value – namely, the best technical service Westchase can afford. Following a pre-screening process, they considered the technical proposal, which encompassed 10 sections covering everything from facilities maintenance to administrative record-keeping, followed by the price proposal. In their evaluation of the final four candidates, the committee sought to achieve a consensus view. “Everyone had the same material and evaluated the material independently,” Mogge said.
The results are as follows:
First recommendation: Inframark. Four of six committee members evaluated and ranked this company as their first choice. They received the highest technical score at 759.
Second recommendation: Real Manage/Grand Manors. Five of six committee members evaluated and ranked this company as their second choice. One ranked it number four. They received a combined technical score of 721 and achieved the highest technical ranking for section 1 (Facilities).
Third recommendation: Greenacre (incumbent). Two of seven committee members evaluated and ranked this company as their first choice and two of seven ranked it their fourth choice with the remainder ranking it their third choice. (Note: Goldstein only had a ranking for Greenacre, explaining his scoring “heavily weighted to financial assessment impact with comparatively lesser weight to technical capabilities.”) Greenacre received a combined technical score of 623 with three RFP deviations for technical and contract provisions (these were not disclosed in the meeting).
The fourth choice, Castle, was eliminated by the committee during evaluations due to proprietary concerns.
The board was privy to a master document with detailed information on each candidate and information that went into overall scoring. They also received a cost breakdown sheet for each company. Mogge added that all of companies would have a positive impact on assessments
“We think continued due diligence through an interview process with whatever companies you choose to move forward with is important,” Mogge said. “That would lead to a best and final negotiation from a commercial perspective.”
He added that the committee felt it was important to engage Shumaker going forward, especially with contract negotiations. The committee had also prepared letters for the board to send out to those who are no longer being considered.
“Personally, my view is that you have a really solid technical requirements document in the RFP that can be converted into a contract…any of those companies, if held to account, can do the work. It’s just a matter of where you want to go with it,” Mogge said.
He added that there is a competitive market, so there is room to negotiate.
The board thanked the committee for their extensive efforts and engaged in a number of follow-up questions. WCA VP Michele DelSordo asked if Greenacre was evaluated based on their current portal system. Lanzar confirmed they included their current portal system in their proposal.
Pam Wilcox of the S&T Committee asked about the timeframe of making a decision and next steps. WCA President Shawn Yesner said he would like to have this board complete the new contract. Pithers also clarified the WCA is currently on a month-to-month contract with Greenacre.
WPV Villas VM Deb Guerino asked why all the candidates except Greenacre were recommending four full-time employees. Mogge explained the difference lies in a full-time property/project manager who would put together bids for the facilities – a job currently done through Facilities Manager Dwight Kilgore. He added that the cost analysis is leveled to allow for an apples-to-apples comparison. S&T Committee member Sean Lynch noted that the current staff allocation of 2.5 employees is not enough. “I would expect an increase to get the facilities where we want them to,” he said.
Holt said a main focus of the RFP was on the ability to have some technical expertise to ensure the property management company can manage maintenance effectively. Lanzar pointed out that Director Jack Maurer is doing a lot of that now.
“We’re looking at facilities that are getting old. We need a planning process,” Crooks added.
A debate ensued as to whether a full-time project manager was necessary. “When you look at the volume of assets we have to get through and the timeline, a lot of the gaps and challenges are due to a lack of this expertise,” Oostenbrink said. “When it comes time to negotiate, we can factor that in. Probably a full-time position at least for the next contract.”
Yesner asked several more questions. Holt informed Yesner that the VMs wanted the RFP presentation at the top of the July 9 agenda and discussions ensued as to whether Debbie and Charlotte should attend the meeting.
Yesner then called for a motion regarding RFP next steps and Boyd motioned to interview Inframark and Greenacre. Yesner clarified, “And not RealManage?” Boyd confirmed just Inframark and Greenacre.
Maurer asked if there was a reason.
“I support Terry’s thought process on that…why would we want to interview people other than the people that the committee voted number one?” Brinker asked.
“But if you look at number two, there is more of a consensus,” Lanzar replied.
“We don’t want number two, we want number one,” Brinker answered.
“If you find something you don’t like from number one, you can move to number two. Now you’re stuck with number three,” Lynch added.
“You’re not stuck with anyone,” Pithers countered. “You take the technical requirements and mash it together and decide what company you want to go with.”
Yesner then called for a vote on Boyd’s motion.
The motion passed 5-2, with Oostenbrink and Maurer dissenting.
“I don’t have any bias here, I’m just shocked by the procedure, and I don’t appreciate it,” Oostenbrink said. “We, as a group, have put in hundreds of hours not to try to find a specific outcome, but to try to identify what’s the best requirements for this community.”
He continued, “There is a lot that goes into that 23-page RFP…at the end of the day the conversation is the interview, and the dollar amounts really aren’t that far apart. That’s where I think it warrants having some extra time and good conversation with each of them.”
“Not to mention we already know Greenacre,” Maurer added. “We don’t need to interview them. Why wouldn’t we interview the two that we don’t know because then it’s comparing apples to apples.”
Boyd and Yesner reminded the audience that they had done their own research based on the committee’s findings
“I also went out and did my own due diligence and talked to people who are in the industry – the feedback I got from attorneys that I know that work in this industry is that RealManage is a nightmare – they said it was not a smooth transition,” Yesner said. “I think it’s Greenacre and Inframark and all others below. We’re comparing Coke and Pepsi at this point.”
Joe Odda spoke from the audience to thank the committee and to express his concern at the way the vote was handled. “To have this motion come forward, it doesn’t make any sense. It’s bad planning. You’re wrecking what this committee has done.”
“I think the RFP Committee and the Discovery Committee did a great job,” Brinker said. ” I think the board’s decision is to pick two of them and interview them hardcore to decide what is best for the community. That is why we are on the board. And that is what the decision is.”
Boyd added that the most important thing is that the RFP committee gave the board a blueprint for the type of contract that needs to be constructed and now it is up to the board to make sure that contract is executed.
Voting Member Presentation
During the July 9 VM meeting, Mogge gave the same recap of the RFP Committee’s work and findings. Following the presentation, a voting member inquired if the committee had entered into the RFP process due to a failure of the current property manager. Holt clarified that it was his suggestion to conduct the RFP process because it is a good business practice to do so. Mogge added that in the process they uncovered data that was useful, including a few disconnects. He explained that the committee asked the incumbent (Greenacre) to audit their time and each activity and the results showed a number of tasks that are in the contract that aren’t being done and several that were being done that aren’t in the contract.
The VMs asked a number of follow-up questions. Mogge said one question the VMs might want to consider is the transition timeline and process. He noted that most companies said that would be anywhere from 30-90 days.
Shires VM Barry Anderson asked if the candidates had stated who their Community Association Manager (CAM) would be and Mogge said they didn’t get into those specifics. Anderson added that he thought 2.5 staff members was not enough for a community of this size.
Yesner then informed the VMs of the board’s decision to interview Inframark and Greenacre. Oostenbrink spoke up to inform the VMs of his displeasure with the way the vote from the previous night was conducted. “I felt the way that was approached yesterday was very borderline suspect in my opinion – and that is just my opinion.” He added that he felt there was an underlying push to eliminate the one other company that was the closest to Greenacre from a price standpoint. He added again that it was just his opinion, not an accusation.
“There’s no conspiracy here,” Boyd said. “I gave my rationale for why I made the motion I made.”
“From someone who wasn’t there last night, why on earth wouldn’t we interview all three?” a VM asked. Several other VMs echoed this sentiment and Lanzar added that the fact that the board isn’t interviewing all three feels disrespectful.
Yesner replied by reminding the audience that the board could interview two candidates and if they aren’t satisfied, they can go back and interview RealManage.
The Bridges VM Dawn Gingrich pointed out that RealManage/GrandManors scored 8 points higher than Inframark on Section 1 of the Technical Section, which references maintenance of facilities, and Greenacre scored 100 points lower overall. She said she didn’t fully grasp those scoring details at the meeting the night before and asked if it was a done deal.
“The board voted the way that it voted,” Yesner replied, adding that he was happy to talk to VMs outside of the meeting to explain his reasoning.
Pithers interjected that it might be a good time to remind the VMs of the role of the board and where things stand now.
“Voting members make the rules. Voting members vote for the board. The board runs the community… You appointed this board to make decisions for the community. We’re making decisions for the community,” Yesner said.
“My sentiments are similar to Michiel’s and Terry [Lanzar’s],” Holt said. “I wasn’t comfortable with how quickly the board voted…The board was aware we were having this presentation tonight. It was their prerogative that they made a decision to make a motion on next steps last night and they didn’t get the opportunity to hear how the voting members felt about all of this, which I think was a missed opportunity. And I don’t think it’s too late. I think they can benefit from our thoughts.”
He added, “I agree with Shawn, this is going to be a board decision, but I don’t understand why the board wouldn’t heavily weigh what the voting members expect or want for next steps on a process like this.”
Yesner responded that he, too, is a resident of Westchase. He added that the interviews will likely include all seven board members, which means there will be a quorum and therefore open to the public. He said the board does want the voting members’ input and the community’s input. “As we do these interviews, if you have input, let us know,” he said.
He also reminded the audience that he had combed through all of the information in Oostenbrink’s spreadsheet for the past two weeks and went out and did his due diligence, so it was not a quick decision.
A voting member questioned why Goldstein, who served on the RFP committee and is also on the board, only had a ranking showing for Greenacre in the results. The committee referred to the results slide, which stated Goldstein’s scoring “heavily weighted to financial assessment impact with comparatively lesser weight to technical capabilities.”
Nancy Sells spoke up to clarify that she learned at the meeting the previous night that the RFP Committee did not directly interview the property management companies; rather, they interviewed current and past clients. Pithers clarified that they felt the role to interview the companies directly was within the purview of the board and they did not want to risk introducing any bias. Sells also asked if it would be made very clear that Westchase has a very different form of government. Mogge said that the governing documents were shared as part of the RFP.
The Enclave VM Christine Hennes spoke up to ask that there not be a lot of subjective emotions during the interview process. “I ask that we put aside relationships with the employees of Greenacre,” she said, adding that the board must be very objective and think about the association and the residents as a whole as opposed to the personal relationships that they have with Greenacre.
Yesner responded that he was going into the process with an open mind. He asked the VMs to reach out to their community to see what questions they would like the board to ask the candidates. A VM asked if they could submit questions and Yesner said absolutely.
Holt asked the VMs if they had any thoughts on how their residents would feel about paying more for assessments. A conversation ensued about what we currently pay and could potentially pay. He added that they are probably looking at $50-80 per year in potential increases across all three candidates, but that would be based on the company’s high numbers and those could go down based on what items are negotiated into the new contract. Anderson offered his advice to the board: “Don’t go with the cheapest; go with the best and then negotiate what you can live without.”
