# Brightview NSP and Krogers - Dillons contract dispute



## WolfertInc (Jan 22, 2016)

My company does snow removal subcontracting through Brightview NSP for various properties in the Kansas City area. We have both seasonal contracts and per event contracts. They have paid on their season contracts accurately and timely, however, I have experienced significant issues with their per event contracts. We are currently owed around $20k and another snow removal firm in Wichita is owed greater than $100k. The primary issues stem from the system they use to determine the snow interval rate they pay on storms as well as shorting payments on de-icing applications. For the snow interval, you'd be lucky if you had a 6" snowfall and their "reports" show only 3.9". They do not provide these reports or give you access to these reports. You simply find out for yourself about 45 days after an event by doing some calculations when you are paid a sum for events on specific dates. The next issue, and greater issue, is they interpret the contract they setup for their Kroger locations differently than most would. They pay per "snow event" and "de-icing application" per occurrence. The pay scale is broken down into intervals such as 2-4", 4.1-6" and so on. The de-icing application pay is one set fee. When performing both snow removal and de-icing applications, you would think that you are paid both the snow event per the accumulations and paid for each de-icing application (if both a pre-treat and a post treat, you would consider this to be two applications). The operations department is excellent at directing their vendors to pre-treat the properties and post treat, but their payables and administration department are not aligned with paying for each of the services performed. They interpret their "snow event" to include a de-icing application. It does say in the contract that a post de-icing application is to be applied after all snow removal, but nowhere does it say that this de-icing application payment is lumped in with the payment for the "snow event". The most frustrating part of this situation is the person who contracted us to do the work, and who I've asked for clarification on the contracts before signing, is no longer with the company. Also, a snow event at a 2-4" interval may pay around $700. The de-icing application for the property may pay around $500. In what world would a property that pays $500 for a de-icing application only pay an additional $200 for both a de-icing application and the removal of snow? This company is standing behind their interpretation of the misleading contract and it's time to put pressure on them. I am looking for other contractors in the same situation to team with me in my efforts to see to it that their vendors are paid for all of the work performed on their behalf. I've been told there are contractors nation wide who are in the same situation. Let's talk.


----------



## Ajlawn1 (Aug 20, 2009)

WolfertInc said:


> My company does snow removal subcontracting through Brightview NSP for various properties in the Kansas City area. We have both seasonal contracts and per event contracts. They have paid on their season contracts accurately and timely, however, I have experienced significant issues with their per event contracts. We are currently owed around $20k and another snow removal firm in Wichita is owed greater than $100k. The primary issues stem from the system they use to determine the snow interval rate they pay on storms as well as shorting payments on de-icing applications. For the snow interval, you'd be lucky if you had a 6" snowfall and their "reports" show only 3.9". They do not provide these reports or give you access to these reports. You simply find out for yourself about 45 days after an event by doing some calculations when you are paid a sum for events on specific dates. The next issue, and greater issue, is they interpret the contract they setup for their Kroger locations differently than most would. They pay per "snow event" and "de-icing application" per occurrence. The pay scale is broken down into intervals such as 2-4", 4.1-6" and so on. The de-icing application pay is one set fee. When performing both snow removal and de-icing applications, you would think that you are paid both the snow event per the accumulations and paid for each de-icing application (if both a pre-treat and a post treat, you would consider this to be two applications). The operations department is excellent at directing their vendors to pre-treat the properties and post treat, but their payables and administration department are not aligned with paying for each of the services performed. They interpret their "snow event" to include a de-icing application. It does say in the contract that a post de-icing application is to be applied after all snow removal, but nowhere does it say that this de-icing application payment is lumped in with the payment for the "snow event". The most frustrating part of this situation is the person who contracted us to do the work, and who I've asked for clarification on the contracts before signing, is no longer with the company. Also, a snow event at a 2-4" interval may pay around $700. The de-icing application for the property may pay around $500. In what world would a property that pays $500 for a de-icing application only pay an additional $200 for both a de-icing application and the removal of snow? This company is standing behind their interpretation of the misleading contract and it's time to put pressure on them. I am looking for other contractors in the same situation to team with me in my efforts to see to it that their vendors are paid for all of the work performed on their behalf. I've been told there are contractors nation wide who are in the same situation. Let's talk.


If they owe you enough and it's justifyable get your attorney involved... Lien the property... Or grin and bear it and hope they pay you eventually..

And last but not least stop working for NSP's....


----------



## iceyman (Mar 1, 2007)

Ajlawn1 said:


> And last but not least stop working for NSP's....


----------



## thelettuceman (Nov 23, 2010)

I am with AJlawn ....NSP's would have to pay me prior to any work I would do for them. I hope you get your money.


----------



## JMHConstruction (Aug 22, 2011)

Do you have photos and accurate logs? I would talk to an attorney like suggested above, and tell them about the company in Wichita as well. It may benefit the both of you to file together. Your attorney would know more about that though


----------



## Luther (Oct 31, 2007)

WolfertInc said:


> We have both seasonal contracts and per event contracts. They have paid on their season contracts accurately and timely, however, I have experienced significant issues with their per event contracts. I've been told there are contractors nation wide who are in the same situation. Let's talk.


Not that I am proud of this, but we also do work for them on both seasonal and per push/per shovel and per application agreements. Yes their automated system that governs the per push and per app sites does suck. It is not accurate and is a battle ground for me. They also admit the system is flawed. Fortunately they pay us well on the sites we do for them and I know enough people there to chew on them to get things resolved. They don't want to loose us as a service provider and do eventually pay out. Once it get's too frustrating with me I'll drop them real quick. Good luck to you.


----------

