So here is something I just don’t quite get about a couple of the city’s real estate deals.

As you can see in the freedom of information response in this blog post, I asked the city last year for details on real estate contracts signed as a result of the 2008 Request for Qualification (RFQ.)

For those not familiar with the process, the city had several real estate transactions on the horizon back in 2008, so instead of issuing a tender each time to hire a real estate company, they issued a RFQ to develop a short list of firms they could go to as needed.

The 2008 RFQ notes the type of real estate work the city needed help with:

“Further to D2.1 the Work may include acting as a buyer agent, listing agent, site evaluation, due diligence, and marketing of Commercial Properties or any other related type of Work as specified by the Contract Administrator or designated representative.”

Hiring a firm to help the city buy and sell properties are clearly noted in the RFQ, but property management work? The RFQ doesn’t say a thing about that type of work. Yet there in the freedom of information response I received from the city are two property management contracts that came as a result of the 2008 RFQ.

For those who aren’t familiar with what property management entails – it’s things like clearing snow around a building, making sure its hallways are clear, picking up rent cheques on behalf of the landlord – that sort of stuff. Clearly it’s different work than helping someone buy or sell multi-million dollar properties.

The city would likely suggest it had the authority to hire firms for property management work by pointing to the “or any other related type of Work as specified by the Contract Administrator or designated representative” language in the RFQ.

But how would it decide which firm to hire for the property management contract? After all, the RFQ Bid Opportunity also states in the fee schedule section:

“The Applicant shall provide their proposed fee schedule which will include their anticipated commissions on Commercial Properties sold for the City.”

After discussing this matter with a “little bird,” I contacted three commercial real estate firms involved in that bid back in 2008. Two told me there was no mention to them whatsoever of property management work and they were never contacted. The third indicated that they were pretty sure there was no mention, but would have to double check.

To follow-up, I have since written Councillor Jeff Browaty, Chair of Property, Planning and Development. I’ve asked Councillor Broway five questions: 

1)   The RFQ from 2008 doesn’t seem to mention anything about property management work. How did the city convey to firms it wanted bids on property management work?

2)   How many firms provided the city with bids on property management rates?

3)   How did the city decide who to award the property management contracts to?

4)   What is the term for the two property management contracts noted in the freedom of information response?

5)   How many other property management contracts have been signed since?

Maybe the process makes sense to others, but for this watchdog, things don’t seem to be that clear. Hopefully Councillor Browaty can shine a light on things.