Seismic Monitoring Decision Raises Questions on Timing, Transparency, and Alternatives
The April 8, 2026 Board Meeting was primarily called to approve a vendor for seismic monitoring services ahead of the nearby Mandarin construction project, which is expected to continue through 2030.
What should have been a straightforward decision instead raised a number of important concerns among owners—particularly around timing, vendor selection, and whether all available options were fully considered and communicated.
Key Takeaways
- The seismic monitoring decision appears to have been made just days before the scheduled implosion
- Only two vendors were presented for consideration
- Proposal dates suggest a much shorter evaluation period than stated
- A potential no-cost alternative may not have been disclosed
- No confirmed pre-demolition inspection for baseline documentation
- Other Brickell Key buildings appear to be further ahead in preparation
Meeting Overview
Board Attendance:
- In Person: Doris Salazar, Jose Masuh
- By Phone: Olena Biletska, Christian Bagshaw (second consecutive meeting on phone)
- Absent: Julius Barbat (In France for his annual 6 month trip)
The meeting began with a presentation from a representative of Dynamic Earth, who provided a detailed and professional explanation of their monitoring process.
Dynamic Earth is currently providing similar services for 2 other buildings on Brickell Key and is scheduled to perform installations within a very tight timeframe all three properties.
Vendor Comparison
Two companies were presented to owners. Some inconsistencies were noted between the written proposal and figures discussed during the meeting.
| Description | Smart Core | Dynamic Earth Proposal | Dynamic Earth per Board |
| Proposal Date | 3/18/2026 | 4/1/2026 | 4/1/2026 |
| Setup Cost | $19,800 | $13,250 (Includes a $2,500 Review) | $28,750 |
| Monthly Cost 5 Year Contract | $2,490 | ||
| Monthly Cost | $5,100 | $2,600 | |
| Total Cost for 54 months (2030) | $153,720 | $288,650 | $169,150 |
| Engineer Report at Conclusion | None | $11,000 | ??? |
| Engineer Reports Initial | None | Included | ??? |
| Tiltmeters | 12 | Only states “15 Targets” | Only states “15 Targets” |
| Vibrometers | 3 | ||
| Accelerometers | 8 | ||
| Video Drone Footage | None | Included | Included |
| Additional Engineer Reports after initial | None | $2,500 | ??? |
| Additional Costs for meetings, correspondence, travel costs | ??? | YES | YES |
Board’s Stated Rationale
The Board President explained the selection of Dynamic Earth based on two primary factors:
- Dynamic Earth provides engineering reports, while Smart Core was described as not performing any engineering, hence a testing-only company. When you look at the details we are paying line item fees for that engineering with this company
- Smart Core required contract commitments with lower prices for a longer term
Owner Concerns Raised During the Meeting
Many owners voiced concerns during the discussion, focusing on the following key issues:
1. Timing of the Decision
Owners questioned why the monitoring contract was being finalized only days before the planned implosion.
While it was stated by Ms. Biletska that this effort had been underway for “many months,” the proposal dates (March 18 and April 1) suggest a significantly shorter evaluation period.
With Owners emotions high, and louder voices, it had to be explained to the Dynamic Earth representative that the anger was directed at the board and not him.
This raises a reasonable question:
Was this process proactive, or largely reactive?
2. Limited Vendor Options
Only two companies were presented for consideration as that was all our board was able to find.
A broader industry search using Ai identifies multiple additional firms that provide similar services.
- GeoSonics / Vibra-Tech: A nationwide firm with a Florida office
- IVC Technologies: Miami Based with focus heavily on vibration analysis and advanced structural testing
- NV5: Global testing firm
- Kinemetrics / Oasis Plus: Global firm
- Altek Engineering: Miami based engineering and testing firm
- DeSimone Consulting Engineering: Miami based engineering and testing firm
The limited number of bids raised concerns about whether the Board conducted a sufficiently wide evaluation process.
3. Additional Available Options
Another firm—Cal Pacifica—has been offered to Brickell Key associations at no cost from Swire.
While this information was not discussed during the meeting it has been confirmed with other association managers and board members.
- Unconfirmed but likely all Brickell Key buildings except BK1 and Isola are utilizing this option
- Brickell Key Two may be using both providers (Cal Pacifica and Dynamic Earth)
If accurate, this raises an important question:
Were all available options fully evaluated and clearly presented to owners?
4. Pre-Demolition Inspection
It was also noted that Swire engineers have requested pre-demolition inspections to document existing building conditions.
Based on available information, it is unclear whether Brickell Key One is participating in this process.
This could be significant, as baseline documentation is typically critical when attempting to assess or prove any post-event structural impact.
5. Execution Risk and Compressed Timeline
Dynamic Earth is scheduled to install monitoring systems across multiple buildings within a very limited timeframe Friday 4/10 & Sat 4/11 for three buildings. Just a day before implosion.
Given the complexity of installation, calibration, and reporting, some owners expressed concern that with only two days and three associations a compressed schedule could increase the risk of errors or incomplete data collection.
Additional Operational Notes
Residents were informed of the following:
- Air conditioning systems will be shut down early Sunday morning for protective measures. Work conducted by Airstron includes placing protective covering on equipment
- Building staff will prepare common areas beginning at 5:00 AM
- Residents are encouraged to remove items from balconies to minimize dust accumulation
- Post-event cleaning is expected, including power washing of windows and balconies
It was also noted in Swire’s presentation that some of these costs may be reimbursable, though this was not discussed during the BK1 meeting.
Final Thoughts
This decision raises broader questions about process, transparency, and communication.
Why was this decision made so close to a critical event?
Were all viable options—including potentially lower-cost or no-cost alternatives—fully explored?
Why is there a difference between cost verbally stated in the meeting verses provided in writing by the vendor?
Why do other buildings appear to be further ahead in preparation?
Most importantly, are owners being provided with the complete information necessary to evaluate decisions that directly impact both cost and risk?
These are reasonable questions—and ones that deserve clear, complete answers.