BrightView Extra Work Proposals

In early 2019, BrightView was awarded an eighteen-month Somersett Common Area Landscape Maintenance Contract (effective March 1, 2019 thru September 1, 2020) in the amount of $1,440,868. This over Signature Landscapes at $1,376,874 and Reno Green at $1,295,903. Although the high bidder, the Board felt going with BrightView had additional benefits (as recommended by staff) and were unhappy with Reno Green’s prior performance. Note that this did not include the Canyon9 and Town Square Properties whose maintenance was still under contract with others.

So what has transpired since then that prompted this Post? Since March 1, 2019 BrightView has been awarded the following added scope work (not including some smaller work scope items implemented without Board approval).

  1. Gypsy Hill Rockery Wall repair landscaping at $13,651 (May 2019)
  2. One hundred tree replacements at $20,468 (June 2019)
  3. Sprinkler head retrofits at $49,730 (August 2019)
  4. One hundred tree replacements at $24,318 (October 2019)
  5. The Boulders landscape improvements at $16,641 (October 2019)
  6. Irrigation controller replacement at $5,715 (May 2020)
  7. Somersett entrance landscaping at $17,971 (May 2020)
  8. Lawn edge installations at $13,166 (May 2020)
  9. One hundred tree replacements at $24,784 (May 2020)
  10. Drip line replacements at $50,000 (August 2020)
  11. Irrigation controller replacements (i.e., with “smart” controllers) at $154, 488 (August 2020)
  12. 100 tree replacements (agenda item 7.b on the December 17th BOD Meeting) at $25,326.
  13. Verdi roundabout plant replacement (agenda item 7.e on the December 17th BOD Meeting) at $20,157

In addition to the preceding, in December 2019, BrightView was awarded one-year contracts for the Canyon9 and Town Square landscape maintenance in the amount of $34,780, this over Signature Landscapes at $33,156. Not a significant difference and having one company to deal with makes sense. Also, in July 2020, BrightView’s original contract was renewed for one year, extending it from September 1, 2020 thru September 1, 2021. Presumably at the same rate, which would equate to $960,578, this without a competitive bid.

The extra work scope described in items 1 through 13 above totals $436,415. Not an insignificant amount and certainly enough to raise the following concerns:

  • Was all this extra work necessary, especially 400 tree replacements in an 18 month period and the west entrance landscape improvements?
  • Was a cost benefit analysis done on the $154K controller replacement?
  • Who is recommending these projects? FirstService Residential as our Association Manager, or BrightView seeking extra work?  Is proper oversight of our Association Manager and/or our Landscape Contractor being practiced?
  • Is BrightView doing such a good job as to warrant renewing their contract without competitive bidding?

Given the significant budget associated with BrightView’s responsibilities, perhaps the new Board will, as suggested by a homeowner, assign a member to directly oversee their activities.

Somersett Development Co. Rockery Wall Lawsuit Update

The reader is directed to SU’s Post of November 19, 2020 “Rockery Wall Lawsuit Update” for predecessor events pertaining the the SOA’s lawsuit appeal against the Somersett Development Company et al. (Respondents). The November Post referenced and published the SOA’s Opening Brief (filed with the Appellant Court on August 13, 2020) stating why the District Court’s decision against the SOA should be overturned. It also referenced and published the Respondent’s Answering Brief (filed on October 14, 2020) stating why the District Court’s decision should be upheld. The SOA was subsequently granted an extension until December 14, 2020 to reply to the Respondents Answering Brief, which brings us to the following:

On December 14, 2020, the SOA filed a 15 page reply to the Respondents Answering Brief, a complete copy of which is available via the following link:

Appellant’s Reply Brief 20-45214

The SOA’s reply brief consisted of the following elements

INTRODUCTION (~2 pages)

ARGUMENT (~12 pages)

      1. Equitable Tolling Of The Statute Of Repose During The Period Of Declarant Control Is Essential To Protect Associations And Homeowners (~ 7 pages)
      2. It Is Not Sufficient For Respondents To Simply Intuit That The Rockery Walls Here Were “Substantially Complete” At Some Indeterminate Moment Years Ago (~5 pages)

CONCLUSION (single statement as follows)

“Based upon the foregoing, Appellant SOA asks this Court to reverse the district court and remand with instructions to proceed in keeping with its opinion.”

SU has no information as to when the Appellant Court will render its decision.  If it upholds the District Court decision, one would assume the process is ended. If it grants the appeal, perhaps the new Board can negotiate a settlement, as was done with the Somersett Country Club.