The 10 criteria, weighted
Five "High" weight criteria drive most of the post-signing satisfaction variance. Three "Medium" are real but less determinative. Two "Low" are nice-to-haves.
Manager turnover rate
HighAsk for the firm's 24-month turnover across their portfolio. >30% is a red flag; >50% is a dealbreaker.
Portfolio load per manager
HighCHOA cites 500 units as the sweet spot. Your quoting manager carrying 1,200 units will not prioritize your 30-unit building.
Communication SLA
HighAsk for written response-time commitments. 24h on non-urgent, 4h on urgent is achievable; longer than that is a warning.
Experience with similar buildings
HighPortfolio mix: how many buildings of your size, type, and city do they currently manage? Should be at least 3 comparable buildings.
Contract terms
HighTermination provisions, fee escalation clauses, automatic-renewal language, liability caps. Flag any clause that shifts risk to the corporation without matching scope.
Fee structure transparency
MedWhat's in the base fee, what's billed extra, what's the Form B issuance fee, what triggers special-meeting billing. Hidden-extras language is often in the fine print.
Financial reporting quality
MedAsk for a sample monthly package. Should include bank rec, CRF schedule, variance vs budget, and a narrative. A PDF dump with no narrative is a quality signal.
Technology platform
MedOwner portal, online fee payment, electronic AGM support, document access. A firm without these in 2026 is likely understaffed.
Company stability
LowBC Corporate Registry incorporation date. Firms older than 10 years have demonstrated durability; younger firms aren't necessarily bad but carry execution risk.
Proactive posture
LowDo they volunteer bylaw updates, insurance-renewal reminders, CRF memos? Or do they only surface when you email them? A one-hour conversation usually reveals which.
How to use this in a council meeting
- Print the criteria list. Each council member scores each proposal on each criterion, 1 to 5, independently, before discussion.
- Collect scores. Compute each proposal's total and its per-criterion average. Identify where scores diverge most sharply between council members.
- Discuss the divergences, not the totals. Two council members scoring the same criterion 1 and 5 is the most informative signal in the room.
- Short-list to two proposals. Request references from each: specifically, councils of buildings within 20% of your unit count, in the past 18 months.
- Call the references. One question: Would you sign again today, knowing what you know now?
What this framework doesn't catch
Two blind spots worth naming:
- Manager-fit. Your assigned property manager matters more than the firm brand. Ask to meet them before signing. Firms that won't introduce them are telegraphing their assignment process.
- Long-term fee trajectory. Year-one fees are often quoted cleanly. Year-two renewal increases and year-three "scope expansion" billing is where real cost lives. Ask for a 3-year fee forecast in writing.
If you don't have proposals yet
This scorecard only works if you have two or three proposals to compare against each other. If your council is still sourcing, run the match flow. A human curator returns two or three BC firms confirmed to be taking buildings your size, typically within 24 hours. Free.
A printable worksheet is next in the resource queue. For now, use the criteria below as the meeting agenda and keep the council discussion focused on evidence, not the lowest first-year fee.