Richland 1 contracted with unlicensed company, paid it more than established rates
A controversial Columbia landscaping company that Richland School District 1’s internal auditor red-flagged for officials a decade earlier was awarded a lucrative contract in 2021 without meeting several of the district’s requirements, records show.
B&G Landscaping of South Carolina, formerly Blooming & Grooming Landscaping Services, lacked a county business license, owed back taxes to the state and appears not to have provided proof of insurance in response to a request for proposals the district issued in late 2020, The State Media Co. found.
The company, which recently obtained a county license but still owes more than $10,000 in unemployment taxes, was one of four landscaping firms Richland 1 awarded contracts in February 2021 to supplement its own landscaping department.
The one-year agreements, which could be extended annually for up to five years, were competitively bid at the outset. But once awarded, the “indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity” contracts allowed administrators to dole out unlimited work to the approved landscapers without needing to return to the school board for approval.
B&G, a small mom-and-pop landscaping operation run out of its owner’s home, has been paid about $2 million over the duration of the contract for work ranging from mulching and pruning to irrigation and landscape demolition, invoices show.
In doing business with B&G, Richland 1 appears to have contracted with an ineligible company and routinely paid it in excess of amounts set forth in the district’s solicitation, The State’s investigation found.
A spokeswoman for Richland 1 said district officials had wide latitude under the contract with B&G to determine the company’s assignments and compensation. She did not explain why Richland 1 hadn’t insisted the company meet the requirements of the solicitation, saying only that the employees currently handling B&G’s contract were not employed when it was first awarded.
The newspaper’s findings, reached through a review of Richland 1’s landscape services bid package, B&G’s proposal and two years of company invoices, add to existing questions about the district’s procurement process and adherence to contract terms.
Last August, the state inspector general found Richland 1 engaged in a $31 million illegal procurement related to the construction of a since-halted early learning center project that cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The inspector general’s investigation, undertaken at the request of S.C. Superintendent of Education Ellen Weaver, came on the heels of the state Education Department placing Richland 1 on “fiscal watch” after an audit of the district’s procurement card system identified “numerous significant deficiencies and material weaknesses” that facilitated unauthorized spending.
B&G’s history of red flags
Richland 1’s relationship with B&G goes back nearly a quarter-century.
It’s not clear how the company first came to work in the district, but records show it’s been under scrutiny for more than a decade.
When internal auditor Kelvin Washington reviewed the district’s procurement of B&G at the request of a board member in 2011, he found the company had been hired without a competitive bidding process — in violation of district procurement code — had no formal contract and received no oversight.
Despite red flags with B&G “indicating possible solvency issues and potential fraud, waste and abuse,” Richland 1 paid the company nearly $2.3 million between 2001 and 2011, Washington found.
Richland 1’s lack of any written agreement with B&G gave the district no means of enforcing requirements for insurance, indemnification or financial stability, and its failure to provide oversight meant officials were unaware the company had forfeited its corporate status years earlier due to tax issues, he wrote in a report outlining his concerns.
Richland 1 continued working with B&G in spite of Washington’s findings, but appears to have modified at least some of the problematic procurement practices he identified.
For one, the district now solicits proposals for landscape services and selects the “most responsive and responsible offerors.”
Richland 1 still does not have a separate written agreement with B&G. Instead, contractor requirements laid out in the district’s 2020 solicitation for landscape services are “the basis” of the company’s indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract, district officials said.
The solicitation, which specified the scope of work and contractor expectations, required, among other things, that all bidders provide proof of business licensure; be in “good financial standing” and current in payment of all taxes and fees; and furnish liability insurance policies prior to doing any work.
B&G appears not to have complied with any of those requirements.
While it submitted an active Columbia business license in response to the solicitation, the company acknowledged it did not have a county license, which is required to work in the unincorporated parts of Richland County where many of the district’s schools are located.
B&G noted in its Dec. 2, 2020, response to the solicitation that it had applied for a county license.
Records show, however, that the landscaping company remained unlicensed until about three months ago, meaning B&G operated in violation of its agreement with the district for more than four years, during which time Richland 1 renewed its contract three times.
B&G’s former owner Lyvonne Able, who appears to still run the company, also has significant tax delinquencies that should have been disqualifying under the terms of the solicitation.
Tax lien records show B&G and Able have paid off nearly $16,000 in back taxes since 2022 — all of which appear to have been outstanding at the time of the solicitation — and still owe another $14,000 in unemployment taxes to the S.C. Department of Employment and Workforce.
The company’s federal tax debt may be even greater.
The IRS claimed in a 2016 court filing associated with Able’s bankruptcy that he and the company — which in 2014 changed its name and was transferred into his wife’s name — owed the U.S. government more than $100,000. Able disputed the IRS’ calculation and terminated his bankruptcy case before his debts were discharged, records show.
The IRS would not tell The State whether Able still owed the agency money, citing privacy laws.
The district also provided no evidence B&G complied with a requirement to furnish proof of general liability insurance, auto liability insurance and worker’s compensation insurance before working for the district.
When asked for copies of any insurance policies B&G submitted to comply with the solicitation, a Richland 1 spokeswoman said documents were “not readily available.”
B&G’s contract compliance
Richland 1 awards its landscape service contracts based on cost, contractor experience and ability to perform the work.
Cost, in particular, is paramount, according to its 2020 solicitation. The “unit prices” bidders submitted in their responses to Richland 1’s request for proposals were “the basis” for the award, and once approved, could only be adjusted upon formal request and with sufficient justification, records show.
A review of nearly 100 B&G invoices found, however, that what the company charged the district rarely corresponded to contractual unit prices and differed considerably from invoice to invoice.
Pine bark mulch installation, which B&G had agreed to do for $127 per cubic yard, was billed either at $150 per cubic yard or not by cubic yard at all (i.e. $36,000 for “Pinebark mulch for 2023 mulch installation”), records show.
Richland 1 spokeswoman Karen York said the district paid B&G more than the contracted rate for mulch installation because the manager deemed the additional cost reasonable. She said the company did not submit a formal request for the cost increase, as the solicitation said was required.
In addition to paying B&G more than its contracted rates, invoices show the district also frequently paid the company separately for equipment, labor, materials and disposal, even though those costs were all supposed to be included within the unit price.
In March 2023, for example, Richland 1 paid the company $8,082 for labor, equipment and materials associated with an irrigation repair project at A.C. Flora High School, an invoice shows.
The district, which was contractually obligated to pay B&G a flat rate of $75 an hour for “irrigation labor” and a 12% markup on materials, shelled out $220 an hour for “crew labor,” $50 an hour for “equipment” and $3,762 for various materials, records show.
The equipment B&G used for the 16-hour project isn’t specified in the invoice.
Other invoices show the company charged the district by the hour for its use of a skid steer, mini excavator, tractor, sod cutter, tiller, skin drag and truck.
While Richland 1’s solicitation for landscape services obligated contractors to provide and pay for all tools and equipment necessary to perform the job, York said it was the district’s policy to permit contractors to charge “reasonable” rental costs for “heavy equipment.”
It isn’t clear why B&G would need to rent the equipment it billed Richland 1 for, since the company listed most of the pieces on an equipment and vehicle inventory it submitted with its bid.
The company’s current owner, Mary Linda Able, did not return a request for comment.
What landscaping work did B&G do?
B&G has performed a variety of tasks for the district in recent years, including some that appear to be outside the scope of its contract and others that wouldn’t seem to be within the purview of a landscaping company.
Among B&G’s most lucrative assignments were landscape improvements at Lower Richland High School; palm tree installation and vegetation removal at multiple district schools; and “entranceway maintenance” at all Richland 1 sites.
The district paid the company nearly $300,000 last summer to enhance the landscaping around Lower Richland High School’s perimeter and courtyard, invoices show.
B&G’s work at the high school involved replacing existing trees and mulch, repairing all campus irrigation systems and installing shrubbery, sod, pavers and irrigation in and around the newly landscaped area.
The project, which the school board approved at the same May 2024 meeting where it extended B&G’s contract, ran continuously for two months “due to the complexity of the work completed,” York said in a statement.
“Demolition of all of the existing landscaping (except one tree) was required to complete the courtyard work scope,” she wrote in an emailed statement. “The courtyard was essentially excavated, regraded, and prepped to obtain the proper drainage needed in all areas to prevent future flooding.”
Records show Richland County did not issue a permit for B&G’s Lower Richland project.
When asked if a permit was necessary, a county spokesman declined comment and directed a reporter to a statement on the county’s Engineering Permits and Approvals web page that states: “If any construction or land disturbance activities are proposed in any unincorporated Richland County, the owner/operator must apply for a Land Disturbance Permit before land is disturbed.”
Invoices show B&G also earned more than six figures working on a short-lived district beautification program.
Beginning in 2023, Richland 1 paid the company $162,640 to install and maintain flower pots near the entrances of district sites as a means of improving “curb appeal.” Most of Richland 1’s approximately 50 school buildings and administrative offices received two or more flower pots, York said.
B&G charged the district nearly $53,000 to install 423 flower pots and $45 an hour thereafter to fertilize and water the flowers and any other entranceway plants and shrubs, invoices show.
The company often spent more than 100 hours per month on “entranceway maintenance,” clocking a high of 320 hours in October 2023, or the equivalent of 12 hours per day that month, invoices show. The October 2023 invoice, which covered the 26-day period from Oct. 2 to Oct. 27, was submitted Oct. 9 and approved the next day, records show.
York said she didn’t know why B&G’s invoice was approved before the company had apparently performed the work.
“The person who handled submitting those invoices for approval is no longer employed with the district, so we cannot provide information about what that former employee’s reasoning or intent may have been,” she said in a statement.
The district discontinued its entranceway beautification program earlier this year and has shifted its resources to removing unwanted and overgrown trees and shrubs from district properties, York said.
Going forward, she said Richland 1 would focus on introducing plants and trees that are visually appealing and low maintenance, with the goal of creating sustainable curb appeal without the need for a separate entranceway maintenance program.
Along those lines, the district has paid B&G nearly $235,000 since 2023 to install palm trees and remove unwanted vegetation, invoices show.
The district has also frequently paid the company to prune trees, a task for which it was not awarded a contract.
While B&G submitted a bid for Richland 1’s tree pruning contract in 2020, records show it lost out to a company called Accusweep, now known as Sweeping Corporation of America.
B&G’s failure to nail down the pruning contract didn’t stop it from getting pruning work from the district, records show. The company has billed Richland 1 for pruning at least 14 times since 2023, at a total cost of more than $88,000
In every case, B&G charged the district more for pruning than its 2020 bid indicated it would, often by a considerable amount.
York said that while the district awarded Accusweep/Sweeping Corporation of America the contract for pruning, it ultimately decided to have B&G and other general landscaping contractors do the work instead.
There is no documentation of the switch, she said, “since all services are at our discretion.”
The chief legal counsel for Sweeping Corporation of America said company officials were not aware of any contract breaches by Richland 1, but otherwise declined comment on the situation.
When asked why the district would award one company a pruning contract through a competitive bidding process only to decide later to give the work to other companies that had apparently submitted inferior bids, York said it was the district’s prerogative.
“All work is at our discretion based on staffing levels, budgets, emergencies, expertise, etc.” she wrote in an emailed statement.
Perhaps the most unusual of B&G’s assignments has involved supplying bases for the district’s baseball and softball fields.
In 2023, invoices show the landscaping company billed Richland 1 to purchase five-piece base sets for seven of its high school fields. The charges, which totaled more than $4,000, were included on invoices associated with B&G’s renovations of those fields, alongside line items for ball park clay, Turface and herbicide.
York said landscapers provide new base sets each year as part of annual field renovations. The district’s in-house landscaping department normally performs the work, but contractors like B&G supplement them at times, she said.
In total, Richland 1 paid B&G $67,500 for renovations at nine baseball and softball fields in 2023, including four fields that were renovated twice, invoices show. In addition to purchasing the company’s materials and paying its workers, the district also paid B&G by the hour for each piece of equipment it used to ready the fields for play, records show.
For fields it renovated in the winter, B&G charged $50 an hour for a tractor, $50 an hour for a tiller, $35 an hour for a skin drag and $30 an hour for a sod cutter, invoices show. In the fall, the company charged $45 an hour for a front-end loader with a tiller, $45 an hour for a truck with an equipment trailer and $40 an hour for a Gator with a field drag, records show.
This story was originally published July 17, 2025 at 5:30 AM.