Concerns Surrounding the RFP Process for Property Management: A Call for Transparency and Accountability
With the upcoming Townhall scheduled for Wednesday, June 11, now is a crucial time for our community to take a closer look at the Request for Proposal (RFP) process that has been initiated for our property management contract. While the intent to review and potentially change management companies may be rooted in fiduciary responsibility, the process undertaken thus far has raised significant concerns about transparency, fairness, and adherence to best practices.
According to Mulcahy Law Firm’s "Cheat Sheet" on How to Select a Management Company, there is a clear and structured process for how an RFP should be conducted within a homeowners' association. Unfortunately, several key steps in this process have been ignored or manipulated, potentially putting our community at legal and operational risk.
Step 1: Selection of an Unbiased Committee
The first recommendation from legal counsel is clear: the Board should establish an unbiased Ad Hoc committee to oversee the RFP process. This committee would be responsible for gathering information, evaluating proposals, and making recommendations to the full board, free of internal bias or personal grievances.
What Actually Happened:
Rather than forming such a committee, certain board members have unilaterally taken charge of the RFP process, without full board approval or community involvement. These members have a known contentious history with the current management company, CCMC, and have made repeated references to past compliance disputes. Their actions give the appearance of a conflict of interest and undermine the integrity of the process.
Steps 2–5: Distribution and Evaluation of RFPs
These steps emphasize the importance of transparency in drafting, distributing, and evaluating RFPs. Legal guidance recommends clearly defining service expectations, verifying credentials, and ensuring equal opportunity for qualified firms to bid.
What Actually Happened:
According to their own statements, these board members created and sent RFPs to at least three companies—all behind closed doors. The community has not been informed about:
• Who these companies are
• What criteria were included in the RFP
• Whether proper credentials (licensing, insurance, bonding) were required
• Who conducted interviews or evaluated responses
Residents are now being asked to trust the judgment of a few individuals without any documentation, transparency, or oversight.
Steps 6–10: Post-Bid Evaluation and Decision Making
These final steps are critical for ensuring that once bids are received, they are reviewed fairly, scored against a standard rubric, and compared with current services. Final negotiations and recommendations should come only after this thorough vetting.
What We Know:
To date, there is no public indication that these steps have been completed—or even started. If any commitments have already been made to a new management company, this would constitute a major breach of proper governance. Such actions could result in legal liability and long-term financial consequences for the community.
What’s at Stake?
A frequently repeated claim by these board members is that a new management company could save the community "$200,000." However, no one has shown what we are sacrificing in return:
• Will staffing levels be reduced?
• Will service quality decline?
• Who determined these savings, and based on what data?
If financial efficiency is the goal, why is property management the only contract being reviewed? Shouldn’t landscaping or other large expenditures be subject to similar scrutiny?
Make Your Voice Heard
The Townhall on June 11 is your opportunity to demand accountability. We urge all residents to:
• Attend the meeting
• Ask tough questions
• Hold board members accountable for bypassing proper procedures
This is not just about choosing a management company. This is about upholding ethical governance, protecting the integrity of our community, and ensuring that all decisions are made in the best interest of homeowners—not driven by personal grievances or backroom deals.
Let’s bring this process into the light—where it belongs.
