2017 Public Bid Results

This forum is used to collect the results of some of the most popular threads, the annual bid results.
User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:48 pm

Perhaps a bit early, but the viewing and bidding season starts in earnest in about eight weeks.

This topic is for bid results on jobs for next year's planting season, ie. calendar 2017. Coastal jobs for this fall (2016) should continue to stay in the 2016 thread.

To find public (BCTS) planting tenders, go to the "BC Bid" website, then click on "browse by organization" on the right, then click on "BC Timber Sales." There will probably be a dozen or more planting contracts posted there by early October. Their website is not very friendly to users of the Chrome browser, so you might have slightly better luck using Firefox or Edge or something like that.

As results come in, and as my personal time, I'll try to post all results here in a nice pretty and organized layout with bids ranked, price per tree listed, etc. Please give me a few days to post some of these, as I may be in the field when they're initially released. Or feel free to post them yourselves in the meantime to save me a bit of work.

If you have other bid results that aren't on BC Bid, feel free to share them yourself. Or if you'd like to share them anonymously, send them to me at jonathan.scooter.clark@gmail.com. and I'll post them under my own account.


Edit, January 24th, 2017:

Here's a link to a report that I put together about the Fall/Winter 2016/2017 Bidding season:

http://www.replant.ca/docs/2017_Bidding_Report.pdf


User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Fri Sep 02, 2016 6:02 pm

Today's WSCA newsletter, the "Rumour Mill Roundup," mentions the following:
It’s early on in the implementation of the pilot phase of BCTS contractor rating system. Naturally, there are questions. To answer them, BCTS has produced a set of frequently asked questions. Not only do they make good reading for contractors, they should be required reading for BCTS staff according to some reports that have just crossed our desk. That requirement would be part of a process to convince staff the extra work is worth it. The rating system intends for more competent contractors to be awarded contracts. And that will mean less administrative work in the end. At least that is the plan.
I've attached the FAQ document to this post.

The text of the PDF is as follows:
BCTS Planting Contractor Rating System
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ – BCTS Planting Contractor Rating System
August 2016



Q. What are the rating definitions and scoring for each rating?

A. Definition of the ratings:
Opportunity for Improvement (OFI): To score at this level difficulties were noted by the BCTS
representative and/or communication given to the contractor that outlined deficiencies in the
contractor’s performance during the term of the contract. [minus one point]
Meets Expectations (ME): To score at this level the contractor met the terms, conditions and
performance requirements of the contract. [zero points]
Exceed Expectations (EE): To score at this level the contractor enhanced performance and/or
outcomes of the contract and performed above the basic performance expectations set out in the
contract. [plus one point]


Q. How are points awarded in the rating system?

A. Points are given to a contractor when they “Exceed Expectations” and points are subtracted
when they receive an “Opportunity for Improvement” for each assessment criterion. There are three
key performance indicators (KPI) which are assessed. KPIs include: Safety (6 criteria); Project
Management (9 criteria); and Quality (5 criteria). KPI’s are assessed and scored on a rating form
for each planting contract.


Q. How is a rating calculated?

A. A contractor receives a points total for each contract within the 3 year assessment period. The
total points for all contracts over the assessment period are then averaged and adjusted based
on the number of contracts and the average size of contracts to give a final rating score. The
rating score converted to a percentage of between zero and 7%. (The 7% rating percentage
would be for the highest performers with a large number of large contracts). The percentages
will be the bid price rating advantage.


Q. What is the maximum price advantage over a 3 fiscal year period?

A. The maximum price advantage over a 3 fiscal year period is 7%.


Q. Is every BCTS planting contract going to be rated using the rating system?

A. Yes, as of April 1, 2016, every BCTS planting contract will have a rating done on it regardless of a
contractor being in the program or not.


Q. When will BCTS start posting planting contracts onto BC Bid that are using the rating system?

A. The pilot stage for the program starts in the fall of 2016. Selected tenders using the rating
system during this pilot stage will be clearly identified as using the rating system.


Q. Will all BCTS planting contracts be using the “BCTS Planting Contractor Rating System”?

A. No, BCTS reserves the right to tender some of its planting contract solicitations on BC Bid
without the rating system.


Q. Can a contractor not participating in the rating system still bid on BCTS Planting contract
solicitations using the rating system?


A. Yes. However, a non-participating contractor will not receive any rating adjustment.


Q. How is a rating applied to a tender bid?

A. On BCTS planting contract solicitations using the rating system, a contractor participating in the
rating system will have their bid reduced by the percentage price advantage of their rating. This
will give an “adjusted” bid. After all tenders from contractors in the rating system have been
adjusted, the lowest bidder at that point will be the one awarded the contract. The lowest
bidder could still be a contractor who is not in the rating system.


Q. Does BCTS sign the contract to the lowest “adjusted” bid price?

A. No, the adjusted tender bids are only used to determine the lowest bidder. The contract will be
awarded at the original tendered price, if the contractor in the rating system is the lowest bidder
after bids are adjusted.
Attachments
BCTS-Planting-Contractor-Rating-System-FAQ-.pdf
(441.97 KiB) Downloaded 49 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Tue Sep 13, 2016 7:00 pm

Here are results for a contract for Planting in Vernon

Contract: PL18DOS001
Client: MOFLNRO Vernon
Season: Spring 2017
# of Trees: 247,327

01. $ 96,216 - 38.9 cents/tree - A&G
02. $ 96,965 - 39.2 cents/tree - Raven
03. $105,778 - 42.8 cents/tree - Zanzibar
04. $114,457 - 46.3 cents/tree - Seneca
05. $148,989 - 60.2 cents/tree - Mihis

I've attached the Tender Offer Form so everyone can see the block list.
Attachments
PLS18DOS001 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(213.2 KiB) Downloaded 80 times
PL18DOS001 Unverified Bid Results.jpg
PL18DOS001 Unverified Bid Results.jpg (128.75 KiB) Viewed 8894 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Wed Sep 28, 2016 5:32 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Vanderhoof

Contract: PL18TJE002
Client: BCTS Vanderhoof
Season: Spring 2017
# of Trees: 510,653

This contract is a number of burned plantations with poke hazards, fill plants, etc. That's why the prices are higher. Or should be higher. I've attached the original Tender Offer form, and the full set of documents can be found on the BC Bid website by using the Advanced Search function and searching for PL18TJE002 under Closed contracts.

01. $185,775 - 36.3 cents/tree - Seneca
02. $201,749 - 39.5 cents/tree - Coast Range
03. $201,753 - 39.5 cents/tree - Rhino
04. $231,989 - 45.4 cents/tree - Folklore
05. $234,576 - 45.9 cents/tree - Celtic
06. $243,932 - 47.8 cents/tree - Spectrum
Attachments
PL18TJE002 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(60.24 KiB) Downloaded 52 times
PL17TJE002 Unverified Bid Results.jpg
PL17TJE002 Unverified Bid Results.jpg (145.32 KiB) Viewed 8776 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:39 pm

I’ve decided to make a Christmas Wish List for this viewing season, since things are about to get into full swing. Perhaps I’m being naïve in thinking that the world can be a better place, but let’s give it a shot:


Wish 1:

I wish that all contractors would take a minute to look in the mirror and say, “I need to make sure that I’m bidding properly for disproportionate travel time.”

I know that some contractors think about this issue, and DO bid accordingly. And I know that others don’t care that much. There is probably a third group that thinks they’re bidding enough for long drives, but who may be mistaken, or who are falling slightly short.

I like to look at this issue from three points of view: as a planter, as a supervisor, and as a company owner. I think about the first when I’m planting on the coast, because I have a lot of time to think. Let’s take an example of what a long drive can do to a planter. Pretend that Planter Sally works for a company that has 11 hour days, portal-to-portal. They leave camp/motel at 7am, and quit at whatever time necessary to be back at exactly 6pm. Let’s also assume that Sally is capable of earning $300 in a FULL 11-hour day. Of course, she never earns that much, because of the driving time that cuts into her planting. Let’s also assume an average of 35 minute drives normally, and 20 minutes of wasted time upon arriving at the block each morning until she actually puts a tree in the ground. On a normal day, she would lose (35*2) + 20 minutes, or 90 minutes, so she plants 9.5 hours out of 11 total. That’s about an 86% capacity utilization. On a $300 (per 11 hour) average, she will average about $259 per day before camp costs, or about $234/day after camp (if camp is $25).

Now let’s say that for a shift she’s working on blocks that are an hour and twenty minute drive. So each day, she loses (80*2) + 20 minutes, or 180 minutes, so she plants 8 hours out of 11 total. That’s about a 72% capacity utilization, or around $218 per day before camp costs, or about $193/day after camp.

As a supervisor, if my camp averages around 100k per day, and the above numbers applied to everyone, production on the long-drive days would drop from about 100k to about 84k per day, a loss of 16,000 trees of production. After two shifts of three days each, the camp has lost an entire day of production. Some people might argue that it doesn’t matter, because they’ll all plant all the trees eventually, and the only loss is one day of their life. Well, I say that’s a day that they’ll never get back. And also, it’s expensive to keep a camp operational: fuel, food/cook subsidies, wear & tear, maintenance, fuels, day-rate people, truck rentals, etc. Every additional day that a camp is running costs the company several thousand dollars. That’s money that I’d rather see going into the planters’ pockets.

Finally, as a company owner, I’d be concerned also about the cost of the vehicles. Not only is the company getting hit on lower daily production AND more overhead in keeping the crew fed and lodged, but there’s also the issue of additional fuel costs getting to the blocks, PLUS more maintenance and repairs, PLUS more rental charges (if charged by the kilometer) or depreciation expense, PLUS the safety downside of more miles being logged. I should clarify right now that I don’t own any part of any tree planting company, but I do own a couple other companies, and vehicles are a terrible expense.

I don’t know what a “reasonable average” drive time from the camp/motel to the block is. Half an hour? Also, I don’t know what to suggest as a “fair” way to compensate planters for unreasonable driving time, because there are so many compensation models out there. But if the drive time is starting to really cut into the work day, then the people who are bidding on planting projects really need to think hard about whether or not the planters are getting a higher price to compensate, AND whether or not they’re also increasing the company’s share of the bid to cover those opportunity costs of lost production, and the direct expenses on the vehicles.

Over the past two months, I’ve been in conversations with planters from five different companies who brought this up as something that is one of the biggest hits to their paycheques.


Wish Two:

I think it would be good at the office viewing meetings, when the BCTS staff introduce themselves, to go around the table and have everyone else introduce themselves.

I often sit down at meetings and realize that I don’t even know a third of the people in the room. And at some of the meetings, everyone just sits there and acts all grumpy and anti-social, because it’s a room full of their competitors in a low-bid system. C’mon guys, turn that frown upside down!


Wish Three:

I wish the deactivation guys would stop taking their jobs so seriously.

Enough said.


And finally, here’s a tip for the people doing the viewing: Take a mountain bike. Sitting in a truck all day is bad for your health. If you need to take a quad to get in to see some of the blocks, run or bike from your truck instead.

Good luck everybody. Remember that there are a lot of trees out there. No need to panic.

granola
Regular Contributor
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:49 pm

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by granola » Mon Oct 17, 2016 11:36 pm

Scooter wrote:Here are results for a contract for Planting in Vernon

Contract: PL18DOS001
Client: MOFLNRO Vernon
Season: Spring 2017
# of Trees: 247,327

01. $ 96,216 - 38.9 cents/tree - A&G
02. $ 96,965 - 39.2 cents/tree - Raven
03. $105,778 - 42.8 cents/tree - Zanzibar
04. $114,457 - 46.3 cents/tree - Seneca
05. $148,989 - 60.2 cents/tree - Mihis

I've attached the Tender Offer Form so everyone can see the block list.

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Tue Oct 18, 2016 8:25 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Mistletoe Eradication in Williams Lake

Contract: FH17TLE011
Client: BCTS Williams Lake
Size: 116 Ha

This contract is for mistletoe eradication from a single large block, a couple hours west of Williams Lake (on the 4600 road). For those of you who don't know what mistletoe eradication is, it's a project where you use brush saws to wipe out young pine seedlings that have been hit by dwarf mistletoe disease. The block will generally then be planted again, and hopefully the new seedlings don't have the disease.

I've seen this particular block, because it's on one of the planting contracts for next spring. It's slightly over 100 Ha in size. It has about probably between 100,000 and 200,000 small pine trees (between 12 and 36 inches in height) that need to be cut. The big challenge on this one will be the access: the block is about a 2.5km quad ride (to the front of the block, almost 4km to the back) from where the trucks can park, and some of the deactivations between the truck and the block are ... ridiculous. I wouldn't have been able to get a quad into the block safely without a bit of work on the deactivations. I ended up taking a mountain bike into the block, and in retrospect, I was very glad that I had.

This is a bid that should be framed:

01. $ 6,618 - Mihis Contracting
02. $22,002 - AKD Reforestation

I can't imagine that Mihis will do this. With a block of 115.82 Ha, this bid works out to about $57 per hectare!

As you can see, Mihis has a history of bidding aggressively:
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/tpg/exter ... cation.pdf

(That was contract BR15TGC004, in Prince George, mistletoe eradication from 2013)
Attachments
FH17TLE011 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(51.31 KiB) Downloaded 25 times
FH17TLE011 Block Map.pdf
(318.57 KiB) Downloaded 27 times
FH17TLE011.jpg
FH17TLE011.jpg (105 KiB) Viewed 8426 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Tue Oct 18, 2016 8:38 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in TOC North Zone, Okanagan

Contract: PL18TKJ001
Client: BCTS Vernon
Season: Spring 2017
# of Trees: 631,000 (511 Ha)

01. $199,639 - 31.6 cents per tree - Seneca
02. $202,843 - 32.1 cents per tree - Timberline
03. $223,327 - 35.3 cents per tree - A&G
04. $226,826 - 35.9 cents per tree - All Stars
05. $230,346 - 36.5 cents per tree - Blue Collar
06. $231,199 - 36.6 cents per tree - Celtic
07. $234,844 - 37.2 cents per tree - Raven Ventures
08. $263,037 - 41.7 cents per tree - Coast Range

I have attached the Tender Offer Form for this contract to this post. Bidding on this contract was adjusted where appropriate as per the BCTS "Contractor Rating" system.
Attachments
PL18TKJ001.jpg
PL18TKJ001.jpg (194.55 KiB) Viewed 8425 times
PL18TKJ001 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(218.75 KiB) Downloaded 35 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 am

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Prince George

Contract: PL18TGC001
Client: BCTS Prince George
Season: Spring 2017
# of Trees: 1,274,832

This contract is located up around the Kay Kay area, off the Chief Lake Road, northwest of Prince George. It's a fairly compact area, only about an hour's drive from one side to the other. When I looked at it, I agreed that six blocks would need Haglunds for access, and one would need a helicopter, as per the forester's recommendations.

01. $341,758 - 26.8 cents/tree - Spectrum
02. $350,381 - 27.5 cents/tree - Celtic
03. $376,772 - 29.6 cents/tree - Folklore
04. $377,002 - 29.6 cents/tree - Blue Collar
05. $389,149 - 30.5 cents/tree - Seneca
06. $432,096 - 33.9 cents/tree - Coast Range
07. $467,920 - 36.7 cents/tree - Apex

Bidding on this contract was adjusted where appropriate as per the BCTS "Contractor Rating" system. Be aware that the "visible" numbers posted here are the adjusted prices, and are NOT the actual prices submitted by each contractor. The adjustment percentages are not public information. In fact, each contractor only knows it's own rating. With a maximum rating of 7%, my guess is that it would be safe to assume that the actual price that Spectrum gets will be approximately 5-7% higher than the listed 26.8 cents per tree.
Attachments
PL18TGC001 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(608.01 KiB) Downloaded 28 times
PL18TGC001 Information to Bidders.pdf
(406.08 KiB) Downloaded 40 times
PL18TGC001 unverified bid results.jpg
PL18TGC001 unverified bid results.jpg (199.83 KiB) Viewed 8355 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:39 pm

We've now seen the results from the first couple of contracts that were tendered subject to the BCTS "Contractor Rating System." This year, this system will apply to some (but not all) BCTS contracts. It does not apply to MOFLNRO contracts, much the same way that the BCTS "Continuous Bid Deposit" rules are not in play for the MOFLNRO contract bid deposits.

You should note that BCTS is not currently willing to release any of the specifics pertaining to the ratings of any individual contractors. Therefore, you will not see the "original" bid prices from contractors who get a discount within the system. For instance, assume that Company X submitted a bid for $300,000 on a contract, and that company has a 5% discount. Let's also assume that Company Y submitted a bid for $295,000 on that same contract, but does not have a discount. The "unverified bid results" posting will list the bids as follows:
Company X - $285,000 Adjusted Tender Price
Company Y - $295,000
The public will not be able to see that Company X's bid was $300,000 less 15%. Also, remember that even though Company X "won" this hypothetical bid with an adjusted bid of $285,000, they will still get paid $300,000 for performing the work.


I have talked to various people about this system, curious about their thoughts. There seem to be three trains of thought with respect to how this will eventually affect pricing: it will drive prices lower, OR it will allow prices to rise, OR there will be no change in the long term. Here is the rationale (if I can express this succinctly) for each of the schools of thought:

PRICES WILL GO DOWN
- Some companies will be getting good discounts, but all the public sees is their adjusted price.
- That "sets the tone" for the pricing in the area, which can then be divided out by the number of trees on a contract to come up with a rough "market price per tree" for the area.
- Companies that don't get favorable rating adjustments will see this "public market price per tree" and fail to respect the fact that the company are actually bidding higher, and those companies will then start bidding at the lower market averages to be able to win contracts.

PRICES WILL GO UP
- Eventually, a lot of companies will be rated. When that happens, they will start becoming secure that they can bid "higher" for a job and still have a competitive bid.
- As that starts happening on bids where most of the bidders have positive ratings, we'll start to see higher price awards.

PRICES WILL STAY THE SAME
- In a limited field of bidders, say a select invite-only list of four or five contractors, each contractor will know roughly where the competitors probably stand.
- With a small field of bidders, if all of the companies probably have about the same rating, the end result will be status quo for the system.


I guess we'll have to wait a year or two to be able to possibly see what really happens.

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:49 pm

These are the results from a contract for Planting in Hazelton


Contract: PL18TIG100
Client: BCTS Hazelton
Season: Spring 2017
# of Trees: 350,000

01. $102,900 - 29.4 cents per tree - Paramount
02. $114,577 - 32.7 cents per tree - Summit
03. $115,255 - 32.9 cents per tree - Anspayaxw
04. $118,455 - 33.8 cents per tree - Dynamic
05. $127,831 - 36.5 cents per tree - Windfirm
06. $129,512 - 37.0 cents per tree - Brinkman
07. $139,533 - 39.9 cents per tree - Coast Range
08. $168,520 - 48.1 cents per tree - Integrity

I'm not sure which Integrity this is. It appears that it's probably what I'm going to start calling "Integrity McBride" (run by Seth MacDonald) rather than "Integrity Industrial" (run by Jake Solway).

I've attached the Tender Offer Form and the Info To Bidders PDF to this post. It appears that this contract was not part of the Contractor Rating System pilot program.
Attachments
PL18TIG100 unverified bid results.jpg
PL18TIG100 unverified bid results.jpg (191.08 KiB) Viewed 8330 times
PL18TIG100 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(69.67 KiB) Downloaded 36 times
PL18TIG100 Information to Bidders.pdf
(172.43 KiB) Downloaded 32 times

granola
Regular Contributor
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:49 pm

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by granola » Thu Oct 27, 2016 2:16 pm

Scooter wrote:Here are the results for a contract for Mistletoe Eradication in Williams Lake

Contract: FH17TLE011
Client: BCTS Williams Lake
Size: 116 Ha

This contract is for mistletoe eradication from a single large block, a couple hours west of Williams Lake (on the 4600 road). For those of you who don't know what mistletoe eradication is, it's a project where you use brush saws to wipe out young pine seedlings that have been hit by dwarf mistletoe disease. The block will generally then be planted again, and hopefully the new seedlings don't have the disease.

I've seen this particular block, because it's on one of the planting contracts for next spring. It's slightly over 100 Ha in size. It has about probably between 100,000 and 200,000 small pine trees (between 12 and 36 inches in height) that need to be cut. The big challenge on this one will be the access: the block is about a 2.5km quad ride (to the front of the block, almost 4km to the back) from where the trucks can park, and some of the deactivations between the truck and the block are ... ridiculous. I wouldn't have been able to get a quad into the block safely without a bit of work on the deactivations. I ended up taking a mountain bike into the block, and in retrospect, I was very glad that I had.

This is a bid that should be framed:

01. $ 6,618 - Mihis Contracting
02. $22,002 - AKD Reforestation

I can't imagine that Mihis will do this. With a block of 115.82 Ha, this bid works out to about $57 per hectare!

As you can see, Mihis has a history of bidding aggressively:
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/tpg/exter ... cation.pdf

(That was contract BR15TGC004, in Prince George, mistletoe eradication from 2013)

That is insane. If they averaged 2 hectares per brusher per day and paid them $150 per day (well below market rate) it would cost them $7500 in labour costs alone!

Is 2 hectares per day a decent estimate, or is it possible to brush mistletoe much faster? Something doesn't add up...

User avatar
Casper
Replant Forums Highballer
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:48 pm
Location: BC

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Casper » Thu Oct 27, 2016 3:27 pm

Depending of the blocks, it is possible to brush up to and maybe more than 7 hectares per brushers on misteltoe blocks. Sometimes you just don't have that many pines lefts and it just a matter of finding them and making sure you don't miss.
Say hey Johnny boy, the battle call.
United we stand, divided we fall.
Together we are what we can't be alone,
We came to this country, you made it our home.

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:22 pm

I was on the block. I tried to do an estimate of how many pine were remaining, because at the time, I was assessing it for potential planting and didn't understand that mistletoe eradication was scheduled (although I had hoped that might be the case). My estimate was between 60k and 100k pine on the block, in terms of trees that were between 1 and 3 feet in height. That works out to about 500-900 stems/ha to be eradicated.

Of course, my numbers were a quick fifteen minute assessment, not based on a series of plots.

The distribution was a bit patchy. There were about thirty hectares without many pines, but other sections which were just carpeted.

I should point out that the trees to be cut, being so small, can be mown down quite quickly with a brush saw. No resistance.

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:08 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Brushing in Revelstoke/Golden

Contract: BR18BKR007
Client: BCTS Revelstoke/Golden
Size: Unknown

I couldn't find the Tender Offer document for this contract.

01. $ 68,990 - GRM
02. $ 74,575 - AKD
03. $ 75,303 - All-Stars
04. $ 82,721 - Raven
05. $ 84,123 - Mihis Silviculture
06. $ 92,860 - Zanzibar
07. $149,558 - BBK Contracting
Attachments
BR18TKR007 Unverified Bid Results.jpg
BR18TKR007 Unverified Bid Results.jpg (165.89 KiB) Viewed 8137 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:14 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Brushing in Arrow South

Contract: BR18TFG003
Client: BCTS Arrow
Size: 182.9 Ha plus 20 Person-Days

01. $122,927 - Wildhorse Forestry
02. $129,535 - West Arm Silviculture
03. $130,479 - A&G
04. $131,536 - GRM
05. $147,420 - Mihis Silviculture
06. $151,042 - Hamelin Silviculture

I've attached the Information to Bidders and the Tender Offer Form for this contract.
Attachments
BR18TFG003 Unverified Bid Results.jpg
BR18TFG003 Unverified Bid Results.jpg (159.11 KiB) Viewed 8137 times
BR18TFG003 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(241.97 KiB) Downloaded 22 times
BR18TFG003 Information to Bidders.pdf
(358.02 KiB) Downloaded 122 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:18 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Mackenzie

Contract: PL18TGE003
Client: BCTS Mackenzie
Season: Spring/Summer 2017
# of Trees: 1,880,601

I've attached the Information To Bidders and Tender Offer Form PDF's to this post.

01. $536,430 - 28.5 cents/tree - Celtic
02. $548,775 - 29.1 cents/tree - Coast Range
03. $560,906 - 29.8 cents/tree - Dynamic
04. $610,684 - 32.5 cents/tree - Blue Collar
05. $667,778 - 35.5 cents/tree - Seneca
06. $711,921 - 37.8 cents/tree - Spectrum
07. $904,773 - 48.1 cents/tree - Apex
Attachments
PL18TGE003 Information to Bidders.pdf
(68.72 KiB) Downloaded 33 times
PL18TGE003 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(188.86 KiB) Downloaded 56 times
PL18TGE003 Unverified Bid Results.jpg
PL18TGE003 Unverified Bid Results.jpg (155.07 KiB) Viewed 8136 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Fri Oct 28, 2016 9:26 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Prince George

Contract: PL18TGC002
Client: BCTS Prince George
Season: Spring/Summer 2017
# of Trees: 2,044,329

I've attached the Information To Bidders and Tender Offer Form PDF's to this post.
This contract was very spread out, with blocks in the east/west direction from Valemont to the Bobtail, and north/south from past Bear Lake down to Hixon. Hence the much higher prices than the other BCTS PG job, despite not having any haglund or helicopter work on this one (there were also a few tougher blocks).

I've attached a couple photos.

01. $618,899 - 30.3 cents/tree - Celtic
02. $635,138 - 31.1 cents/tree - Brinkman
03. $645,837 - 31.6 cents/tree - Coast Range
04. $674,854 - 33.0 cents/tree - Spectrum
05. $676,381 - 33.1 cents/tree - Folklore
06. $688,508 - 33.7 cents/tree - Seneca
07. $703,197 - 34.4 cents/tree - Blue Collar
08. $780,892 - 38.2 cents/tree - Apex
Attachments
PG TGC 002c.jpg
PG TGC 002c.jpg (752.62 KiB) Viewed 4463 times
PG TGC 002b.jpg
PG TGC 002b.jpg (590.75 KiB) Viewed 4463 times
PG TGC 002a.jpg
PG TGC 002a.jpg (434.67 KiB) Viewed 4463 times
PL18TGC002 Unverified Bid Results.jpg
PL18TGC002 Unverified Bid Results.jpg (172.07 KiB) Viewed 8103 times
PL18TGC002 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(762.42 KiB) Downloaded 29 times
PL18TGC002 Information to Bidders.pdf
(410.35 KiB) Downloaded 42 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:35 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Kamloops

Contract: PL18TED001
Client: BCTS Kamloops
Season: Spring 2017
# of Trees: 2,062,212

I've attached the Tender Offer Form for this contract to this post. This contract is extremely spread out. There are blocks from between Ashcroft and Logan Lake in the SW, over to close to an hour SE of the city south of the TransCanada East, up to Sun Peaks, to some areas up the Lac Du Bois road north of the city, and also way up north and west of Little Fort. Extreme driving. Also, there are a few tougher areas in this contract. With fourteen distinct areas containing blocks, going from the SW up to the NE (the order that I viewed them), I thought it was moderately easy ground until I hit the last three areas and took some time to poke around.

I've attached a few photos.

01. $588,809 - 28.6 cents/tree - Coast Range
02. $613,042 - 29.7 cents/tree - Apex
03. $625,879 - 30.3 cents/tree - Blue Collar
04. $657,736 - 31.9 cents/tree - Seneca
05. $697,229 - 33.8 cents/tree - A&G
06. $701,170 - 34.0 cents/tree - Leader
07. $711,111 - 34.5 cents/tree - Folklore
08. $820,148 - 39.8 cents/tree - Brinkman
Attachments
BCTS Kamloops2.jpg
BCTS Kamloops2.jpg (1.53 MiB) Viewed 4462 times
BCTS Kamloops3.jpg
BCTS Kamloops3.jpg (729.51 KiB) Viewed 4462 times
BCTS Kamloops1.jpg
BCTS Kamloops1.jpg (527.84 KiB) Viewed 4462 times
PL18TED001 Unverified Bid Results.jpg
PL18TED001 Unverified Bid Results.jpg (182.36 KiB) Viewed 7906 times
PL18TED001 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(171.68 KiB) Downloaded 32 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:39 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Merritt

Contract: PL18TEF004
Client: BCTS Merritt
Season: Spring 2017
# of Trees: 2,325,010

See the documents attached to this post for more information.

01. $718,775 - 30.9 cents/tree - Coast Range
02. $727,332 - 31.3 cents/tree - Brinkman
03. $767,759 - 33.0 cents/tree - Seneca
04. $778,599 - 33.5 cents/tree - Blue Collar
05. $786,396 - 33.8 cents/tree - Celtic
06. $827,536 - 35.6 cents/tree - Fieldstone
07. $833,975 - 35.9 cents/tree - A&G
08. $870,811 - 37.5 cents/tree - Zanzibar
09. $938,487 - 40.4 cents/tree - Apex
10. $947,817 - 40.8 cents/tree - NGR
Attachments
PL18TEF004 Unverified Bid Results.jpg
PL18TEF004 Unverified Bid Results.jpg (198.36 KiB) Viewed 7905 times
PL18TEF004 Information to Bidders.pdf
(52.42 KiB) Downloaded 39 times
PL18TEF004 Schedule B1- Units of Work.pdf
(103.53 KiB) Downloaded 40 times
PL18TEF004 Notice to Bidders Revised.pdf
(29.83 KiB) Downloaded 26 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:44 pm

Here are the results for another contract for Planting in Mackenzie

Contract: PL18TGE004
Client: BCTS Mackenzie
Season: Summer 2017
# of Trees: 1,621,900

I've attached the relevant contract documents to this post.

01. $408,674 - 25.2 cents/tree - Spectrum
02. $425,525 - 26.2 cents/tree - Dynamic
03. $444,072 - 27.4 cents/tree - Blue Collar
04. $493,348 - 30.4 cents/tree - Celtic
05. $507,995 - 31.3 cents/tree - Coast Range
06. $552,709 - 34.1 cents/tree - Seneca
07. $751,241 - 45.7 cents/tree - Apex
Attachments
PL18TGE004 Unverified Bid Results.jpg
PL18TGE004 Unverified Bid Results.jpg (158.98 KiB) Viewed 7905 times
PL18TGE004 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(207.3 KiB) Downloaded 68 times
PL18TGE004 Information to Bidders.pdf
(410.77 KiB) Downloaded 34 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:48 pm

Here are the results for another contract for Planting in Kamloops

Contract: PL18DTR002
Client: MOFLNRO Thompson Rivers
Season: Spring 2017
# of Trees: 602,870

This job included a large forest fire near Ashcroft that requires lots of DTA, walking, and clearing of heli drop zones. Other than that, it's spread out at all points of the compass around Kamloops. Lots of long drives. As always.

01. $219,339 - 36.4 cents/tree - Brinkman
02. $281,667 - 46.7 cents/tree - A&G
03. $329,375 - 54.6 cents/tree - Evergreen
Attachments
PL18DTR002 Invitation to Tender.pdf
(210.07 KiB) Downloaded 46 times
PL18DTR002 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(216.09 KiB) Downloaded 25 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:50 pm

Here are the results for another contract for Planting in Vanderhoof

Contract: PL18DVA001
Client: MOFLNRO Vanderhoof
Season: Spring 2017
# of Trees: 411,650

This was an area-based bid, for 326.7 hectares. This is a lot of tiny scraps of blocks, all guts and feathers. Lots of challenging ground, and the logistics would be very imposing. This will be a great job for Torrent, they're good at this sort of a challenge.

01. $190,891 - 46.4 cents/tree - Torrent
02. $214,257 - 52.0 cents/tree - Apex
03. $238,770 - 58.0 cents/tree - Folklore
04. $263,868 - 64.1 cents/tree - Seneca

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Sat Nov 05, 2016 9:05 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Brushing in Mackenzie

Contract: BR18TGE001
Client: BCTS Mackenzie
Season: 2017
Size: 167.59 Hectares

The main contract documents are attached to this post. Contrast the dollar amounts per hectare here with the mistletoe eradication bid earlier - two completely different types of work, of course, since this is all manual brushing and/or weeding.

01. $192,630 - $1,149/ha - Mihis Silviculture
02. $451,626 - $2,695/ha - Spectrum
Attachments
BR18TGE001 Unverified Bid Results.jpg
BR18TGE001 Unverified Bid Results.jpg (132.21 KiB) Viewed 7903 times
BR18TGE001 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(60.72 KiB) Downloaded 26 times
BR18TGE001 Vegetation Management Manual Methods.pdf
(48.67 KiB) Downloaded 34 times
BR18TGE001 Information to Bidders.pdf
(61.37 KiB) Downloaded 32 times
BR18TGE001 Prescriptions.zip
(431.7 KiB) Downloaded 32 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Sat Nov 05, 2016 9:13 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Vernon

Contract: PL18TKN005
Client: BCTS Vernon
Season: Spring/Summer 2017, 3-year OTR
# of Trees: 1,206,751

The relevant contract documents are attached to this post.

01. $337,578 - 28.0 cents/tree - Coast Range
02. $361,012 - 29.9 cents/tree - Celtic
03. $370,069 - 30.7 cents/tree - Seneca
04. $371,666 - 30.8 cents/tree - Raven
05. $376,609 - 31.2 cents/tree - Blue Collar
06. $395,692 - 32.8 cents/tree - Fieldstone
07. $410,280 - 34.0 cents/tree - A&G
08. $439,455 - 36.4 cents/tree - Evergreen
Attachments
PL18TKN005 Unverified Bid Results.jpg
PL18TKN005 Unverified Bid Results.jpg (180.27 KiB) Viewed 7903 times
PL18TKN005 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(87.74 KiB) Downloaded 60 times
PL18TKN005 Information to Bidders.pdf
(76.83 KiB) Downloaded 57 times
PL18TKN005 Information to Bidders - AMENDMENT No.1.pdf
(73.33 KiB) Downloaded 25 times
PL18TKN005 Highlights of Changes.pdf
(52.42 KiB) Downloaded 17 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Sat Nov 05, 2016 9:15 pm

I'm looking for bid results for the following jobs. If anyone has them, we'd all appreciate if they were shared. If you're shy about posting under your own name, feel free to email the results to me at jonathan.scooter.clark@gmail.com.. and I'll post them under my own account.

PL18DTR001 - MOFLNRO Clearwater - 382,900 trees
PL18DQU001 - MOFLNRO Quesnel - 422,200 trees


Also, I'll post more info in a few days about these jobs which have also opened already:

MOFLNRO Prince George (PL18DPG300) - Celtic
MOFLNRO Quesnel (PL18DQU001) - AKD

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Sat Nov 05, 2016 9:31 pm

For those of you who are curious about the BCTS Contractor Rating System, here's a blank copy of their evaluation form, attached.
Attachments
Blank Contractor Rating System Evaluation Form.pdf
(121.33 KiB) Downloaded 58 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Mon Nov 07, 2016 3:51 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Williams Lake

Contract: PL18TLE001
Client: BCTS Williams Lake
Season: Spring 2017
# of Trees: 1,819,942

This bid is crazy. So crazy that two companies emailed me this info today before our own office even saw the results.

I worked here last year, so I think the current Folklore bid is representative of a reasonable price. You'll also notice that NGR's bid was quite close to Folklore's. NGR also has extensive experience in this area, and was camped 500m away from us last year as we both worked in this area.

Also, the drives on this are even worse than last year. Watch those odometers roll ...

I've attached one photo.

01. $462,404 - 25.4 cents/tree - Brinkman
02. $558,796 - 30.7 cents/tree - Blue Collar
03. $579,502 - 31.8 cents/tree - Coast Range
04. $607,564 - 33.4 cents/tree - Folklore
05. $639,980 - 35.2 cents/tree - NGR
06. $656,499 - 36.1 cents/tree - Celtic
07. $816,654 - 44.9 cents/tree - Apex

Be aware that these are "adjusted" bid prices, as per the BCTS Contractor Rating system. It seems to be the policy of BCTS so far this fall that their preference is to share the adjusted prices, rather than the original bid prices. The actual bid prices submitted by some of the companies on that list can be up to 7% higher than the numbers shown. This means, of course, that the actual bid price received by Brinkman (assuming that they take the contract) will be higher than 25.4 cents per tree. Likewise, some (but not all) of the prices from other companies on this list are higher in actuality than this list implies. For example, I know that Folklore's bid was definitely higher than the $607k shown on this list, although I'm not going to share exactly what it was.

I'm not really sure that my preference is for BCTS to share the adjusted prices. Since it's government work, it's public information. However, I think that I'd rather see the actual prices shared. But I'm going to think on that subject for a while longer, and talk about it in a separate post someday once we've seen more results from this season's implementation of the new system.
Attachments
BCTS Williams Lake 001a.jpg
BCTS Williams Lake 001a.jpg (439.02 KiB) Viewed 4461 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:15 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Kootenay Lake

Contract: PL18TFD002
Client: BCTS Nelson
Season: Spring 2017
# of Trees: 658,000

I've attached the tender documents. This contract also contains 200,000 ferts, and some access cost, which skews the per/tree numbers somewhat.

01. $312,540 - 47.5 cents/tree - A&G
02. $317,406 - 48.2 cents/tree - Evergreen
03. $369,895 - 56.2 cents/tree - Fieldstone
04. $425,486 - 64.7 cents/tree - Brinkman
Attachments
PL18TFD002.jpg
PL18TFD002.jpg (142.78 KiB) Viewed 7758 times
PL18TFD002 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(199.32 KiB) Downloaded 50 times
PL18TFD002 Information for Bidders.pdf
(481.09 KiB) Downloaded 73 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:12 pm

Here's an interesting document. It's the tender form for the Ministry for the production of seedlings in 2018. Approximately 33 million seedlings, to be exact.

The reason I say this is interesting, other than for general curiousity, is that it's possible to see all areas that stock is being allocated to. So for someone who is trying to find areas where select tenders are being offered, this document would help identify any missing areas that they had overlooked, and subsequently contact those ministry offices in future seasons.

It's also interesting because it would be possible to break down the relative amounts of different stock sizes.

Almost all of the trees on this sheet are for Spring 2018. Only the last three lines include a provision for Summer 2018 stock. Of course, that's because Summer stock is grown at a separate time, so presumably that would be tendered out later.

Also, I'm uncertain as to why almost the entire tender is for lodgepole, yellow pine, and western larch, aside from a couple lines for red cedar and douglas fir near the end. I don't know a lot about the sourcing of seedlings, so I'm not sure if the spruce would be on a separate contract or if it is produced by a separate in-house nursery. I'm starting to read through this information, to learn more:
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/nursery/HEADQTRS/contract.htm

Hopefully, after the fiasco of trying to get summer trees last year, the Ministry won't be using Silvagro.
Attachments
TenderOfferForm_2017F_Updated.pdf
(368.09 KiB) Downloaded 145 times

User avatar
mwainwright
Replant Forums Highballer
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:36 pm
Location: Haida Gwaii

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by mwainwright » Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:08 pm

you're spending an unhealthy amount of time on bcbid. but so am i...

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:05 pm

I have a people from a handful of other companies who feed me information quite frequently, to post under my own account. That way, they can remain anonymous, and it saves me a ton of time in digging for stuff. One even does the per-tree math for me. Most of the time, I only go onto BC Bid for a few minutes, to download the tender documents and do a screen capture of the unverified bid results.

But yeah, even with that, BC Bid is one of my most frequently visited websites. Not just for planting. I was looking at a pretty cool project the other day with a goal of studying the Western Screech Owl. And there are all sorts of other interesting projects out there.


Another good one, if you haven't seen it, is BC Auction. That's where they sell surplus government equipment and police seizures. I saw a 24 foot boat with two outboard motors (plus trailer) there a couple months ago that I thought about buying. A day before the auction closed, it was going for only $13k. I've seen data projectors going for around $100. Right now, there's a stock Canon EF 18-55mm lens going for $25 in Victoria, and a Nikon D5000 with two lenses going for $430 in PG. And there is often some interesting stuff in the tools and equipment section.



For anyone who's curious about the Western Screech Owl thing, here's the summary and I've attached a PDF to this post with more information:
Summary Details:
The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations in Nanaimo seeks bids from qualified contractors to conduct services related to Western Screech Owl ssp. kennicottii inventory in the West Coast Region. The successful contractor will compile and organize all available WSOW data, create a geo-spatial map layer and develop an inventory survey design with objectives to 1) contribute to population (including trends) and distribution knowledge gaps and 2) confirm and expand on WSOW occurrences and associated habitat requirements. These deliverables will be used to support WSOW inventory work in 2017 and the future and support additional recovery actions including potential management and protection of WSOW breeding areas and associated habitat.

The contractor will be responsible for:

1. Compiling and organizing all available information on inventories where WSOW were a target species, WSOW occurrences and WSOW nest locations into a tabular (database) form, generating a GeoSpatial map layer, documenting data sources and ensuring data are present in the Wildlife Species Inventory (WSI) database.

2. Developing a survey design with: 1) recommendations for future statistical analyses of inventory results with consideration of potential resources available to conduct inventories. Objectives for the survey design include: 1) contributing to WSOW population (including trends) and distribution knowledge gaps and 2) confirming and expanding knowledge on WSOW occurrences and associated habitat requirements. Survey design will include recommendations on: 1) the most effective and efficient WSOW survey methodology (consistent with established inventory standards), 2) prioritized (with rationale) inventory and habitat assessment locations in the West Coast Region (with a focus on, but not limited to, provincial Crown land), and 3) survey timing.

3. For the purposes of training WSOW inventory personnel, develop a power point presentation that explains the inventory survey design and methodology.

TL;DR
I have no social life.
Attachments
CS17NAN408 - Request for Proposal Western Screech Owl Survey Design.pdf
(424.41 KiB) Downloaded 81 times

User avatar
mwainwright
Replant Forums Highballer
Posts: 405
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:36 pm
Location: Haida Gwaii

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by mwainwright » Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:45 am

indeed, bcbid can be quite the rabbit hole if you are interested in looking at this sort of thing. as for bc auction, ive seen tucks and quads go for as little as 500$

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:04 am

Here are the results for another contract for Planting in Williams Lake

Contract: PL18DCC001
Client: MOFLNRO Williams Lake
Season: Spring 2017
# of Trees: 3,018,045

This one is a big one, probably one of the biggest dollar amount contracts of the year. Not only three million trees, but also, mostly fill plants, for a combination of three reasons: pine beetle, fires, or just insufficient restocking survival. Access is generally good, albeit confusing. One area of terrible rocks, but it's only a few hundred thousand trees.

I've attached the single photo that I took while viewing this.

01. $1,091,025 - 36.2 cents/tree - NGR
02. $1,191,852 - 39.4 cents/tree - Apex
03. $1,263,723 - 41.9 cents/tree - Blue Collar
04. $1,277,771 - 42.3 cents/tree - Seneca
05. $1,668,729 - 55.3 cents/tree - Folklore
Attachments
MOF WmLake1.jpg
MOF WmLake1.jpg (660.9 KiB) Viewed 4460 times
PL18DCC001 Tender Opening Record.pdf
(318.12 KiB) Downloaded 29 times
PL18DCC001-Spring.pdf
(69.79 KiB) Downloaded 37 times

retrovertigo
Replant Forums Highballer
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:39 pm

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by retrovertigo » Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:40 pm

^^ Is that WL contract the one that Dynamic did this year? Heard some horror stories from friends who were there and it sounds very similar - mostly fill plants, confusing access, long drives down overgrown roads, checkers never happy, tons of replanting. I think there was eventually a mutiny with a chunk of the workers quitting.

Dunno if this is the same one but it is strange not seeing them bidding on a contract that's right in their back yard.

leaner
Starting to Post
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:17 am

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by leaner » Fri Nov 18, 2016 4:15 am

25 cent trees in mackenzie and williams lake.
30 cent trees in hazelton.

This year is messed up.

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:46 am

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Williams Lake

Contract: PL18TLE002
Client: BCTS Williams Lake
Season: Spring 2017
# of Trees: 3,064,470

Celtic is biting off a lot of work this year. This is a pretty big job. Again, as with the other big BCTS job in Williams Lake, I'm surprised at how close the NGR and Folklore bids were. These are the two companies that did the two BCTS jobs last year, and were camped beside each other. These companies have a pretty good idea of what the ground and expectations are like on these jobs.

Be aware that this contract used the Contractor Rating System, and therefore, the bids posted here are AFTER downward adjustments for contractor ratings, and are only used for deciding the order for awarding the contract. Actual bid prices were up to 7% higher, depending on the company.

I've attached the two photos that I took while viewing blocks here.

01. $ 884,055 - 28.8 cents/tree - Celtic
02. $ 940,490 - 30.7 cents/tree - Coast Range
03. $ 954,499 - 31.1 cents/tree - Folklore
04. $ 959,179 - 31.3 cents/tree - NGR
05. $1,028,773 - 33.5 cents/tree - Apex
06. $1,154,730 - 37.7 cents/tree - Seneca
07. $1,192,095 - 38.9 cents/tree - Fieldstone
Attachments
BCTS Williams Lake 002b.jpg
BCTS Williams Lake 002b.jpg (778.44 KiB) Viewed 4459 times
BCTS Williams Lake 002a.jpg
BCTS Williams Lake 002a.jpg (645.53 KiB) Viewed 4459 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:47 am

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Boundary (Kootenay Region)

Contract: PL18TFF003
Client: BCTS Boundary
Season: Spring 2017
# of Trees: 278,000 (plus 174,000 ferts)

These prices include the 174,000 tea-bags, so the per tree prices listed here are really several cents higher than they would be if there were no ferts on this contract.

Viewing of the blocks on this contract was mandatory. Bidders were expected to take a photograph of each block and write up a description of the block and how they planned to approach any logistical challenges, etc. This is something that is starting to happen more frequently. I really think this is a great idea, as it prevents unscrupulous companies from submitting blind bids on projects.

01. $106,162 - 38.2 cents/tree - All Stars
02. $123,450 - 44.4 cents/tree - Raven
03. $138,206 - 49.7 cents/tree - Evergreen
04. $152,920 - 55.0 cents/tree - Brinkman
05. $157,183 - 56.5 cents/tree - Blue Collar
Attachments
PL18TFF003 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(104.05 KiB) Downloaded 22 times
PL18TFF003 ITT & Bidder Information.pdf
(63.74 KiB) Downloaded 45 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:50 am

Here are the results for another contract for Planting in Boundary (Kootenay Region)

Contract: PL18TFF001
Client: BCTS Boundary
Season: Spring 2017
# of Trees: 1,157,700

This is another contract which had mandatory site viewing. Bravo. Contractors can't complain to BCTS later that the blocks did not meet their expectations.

01. $448,327 - 38.7 cents/tree - Evergreen
02. $476,585 - 41.2 cents/tree - Celtic
03. $496,567 - 42.9 cents/tree - West Arm Silviculture
04. $531,361 - 45.9 cents/tree - A&G
05. $542,827 - 46.9 cents/tree - Blue Collar
06. $544,119 - 47.0 cents/tree - Brinkman
Attachments
PL18TFF001 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(150.8 KiB) Downloaded 24 times
PL18TFF001 ITT & Bidder Information.pdf
(64.03 KiB) Downloaded 25 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:52 am

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Fort St James

Contract: PL18TJE004
Client: BCTS Vanderhoof (Fort St. James)
Season: Spring 2017
# of Trees: 2,387,437

I've attached the only photo that I took here. It was pretty grim, considering that this was taken just before 11am.

01. $630,472 - 26.4 cents/tree - Brinkman
02. $687,452 - 28.8 cents/tree - Coast Range
03. $695,973 - 29.2 cents/tree - Blue Collar
04. $697,455 - 29.2 cents/tree - Celtic
05. $728,083 - 30.5 cents/tree - Seneca
06. $738,731 - 30.9 cents/tree - Apex
07. $787,187 - 33.0 cents/tree - Folklore
08. $846,670 - 35.5 cents/tree - NGR
Attachments
FSJ 004a.jpg
FSJ 004a.jpg (409.12 KiB) Viewed 4458 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Mon Nov 21, 2016 4:58 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Juvenile Spacing in the Kootenays

Contract: JS18TFH005
Client: BCTS Nelson
Season: 2017
Size: 41.4 Ha

From the Information To Bidders document: "This project includes the manual thinning of approximately 40 hectares within the Lamb Creek area in the Cranbrook TSA , involving the manual thinning of fire origin stands to densities of 3500 stems/ha using a power brush saw or chain saws."

01. $63,480 - $1,533 per Ha - Andre Hamelin, Hamelin Silviculture
02. $73,678 - $1,780 per Ha - West Arm Silviculture
03. $80,748 - $1,950 per Ha - A&G Reforestation
04. $99,280 - $2,398 per Ha - Raven Ventures
Attachments
JS18TFH005 Unverified Bid Results.jpg
JS18TFH005 Unverified Bid Results.jpg (111.06 KiB) Viewed 7087 times
JS18TFH005 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(119.24 KiB) Downloaded 39 times
JS18TFH005 ITT & Bidder Info.pdf
(313.66 KiB) Downloaded 54 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Mon Nov 21, 2016 5:44 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in the Burns Lake & Houston Area

Contract: Silvicon PL-01
Client: Forests For Tomorrow Program (Administered by Silvicon)
Season: Spring 2017
# of Trees: 1,263,540

This is a confusing one, which is to be expected since it's a FFT project. The blocks are all old plantations which are being fill planted due to burns, etc. Many are still full of standing timber or look like Christmas Tree farms. Some of these blocks have hundreds of thousands of acceptable crop trees which have grown up since the last time that someone did stocking surveys. Oops.

Here are the bid results:

01. $413,178 - 32.7 cents/tree - Coast Range
02. $454,874 - 36.0 cents/tree - Brinkman
03. $478,882 - 37.9 cents/tree - Hybrid 17
04. $516,777 - 40.9 cents/tree - All Stars
05. $717,691 - 56.8 cents/tree - Folklore
06. $5,180,514 - $4.10 per tree - Dewan


I tried to look at every single block on this contract, although I missed some - some were inaccessible, very old blocks behind closed gates on private property. I doubt that anyone else was that diligent, due to the snow load when this job was posted.

This is my favorite bid so far this year. My guess is that most or all of these bids (except mine) were blind bids, and nobody had any clue what they were bidding on. Good luck, Coast Range!

I've added two photos. This photo, which looks like a Christmas Tree Plantation, is one of the blocks that needs to be filled. Obviously, it's quite well stocked. I'm not sure if the administrators are aware of how many green trees are standing on some of these blocks. This will be one of the easiest blocks, because the naturals are so mature. Many of the other blocks have knee-high naturals hidden in grass and brush.

Image

This second photo shows me trying to find access to another blocks. Quite a few of the blocks have no access, and roads are going to have to be cut (often for more than a kilometer) through standing timber such as what you can see to the sides of the road that I'm parked on:

Image

In a few cases, it might be possible to create longer quad access trails that wind through other older plantations. That would probably be easier than going straight through some of the forest.

In addition, there's one large block which is scheduled for 267,000 trees. I tried to find it from all directions, using a combination of old forestry maps and Google Earth, and the closest road that went near the block ended 4 kilometers from the block. I suspect the block itself is standing mature forest fire, but who knows? I can only hope that the winning bidder on this one took the time to hike four kilometers through the snow to take a look and see what the block looks like, and try to decide where they're going to cut quad trails and build bridges.

Here's a map of that particular block. Looks like a lot of streams surrounding the block, that could be a challenge for getting trees in. Mind you, they may have planned to do this block by helicopter. That would be easiest for the planters.

Image
Attachments
Silvicon3.jpg
Silvicon3.jpg (481.08 KiB) Viewed 4456 times
SILVICON-PL-01 Unverified Bid Results.jpg
SILVICON-PL-01 Unverified Bid Results.jpg (224.07 KiB) Viewed 7080 times
SILVICON-PL-01 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(68.17 KiB) Downloaded 20 times
SILVICON-PL-01 Schedule of Blocks.pdf
(13.51 KiB) Downloaded 27 times
SILVICON-PL-01 Invitation to Tender.pdf
(11.56 KiB) Downloaded 29 times
SILVICON-PL-01 Information for Bidders.pdf
(143.83 KiB) Downloaded 21 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Mon Nov 21, 2016 5:49 pm

leaner wrote:25 cent trees in mackenzie and williams lake.
Just wait. There's another bid coming out next week which should be even more of an eye-opener, much easier ground than those jobs in Mackenzie and Williams Lake. There's a BCTS contract still to open which has around 1.8m trees on four large blocks touching each other, almost entirely trenches and mounds. Just beautiful ground. The stuff that dreams are made of. Plus another 1.2m trees in two other areas. Perfect for a large camp to park right in the middle of the blocks. I'll put up some photos after the bids open. All eyes will be on that opening.

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Fri Nov 25, 2016 5:41 pm

Here are the results for another contract for Planting in Fort St James

Contract: PL18TJE003
Client: BCTS Fort St James
Season: Spring 2017
# of Trees: 3,530,235

This contract was part of the Contractor Rating System.

I've attached the two photos that I took while viewing this contract.

01. $ 967,908 - 27.4 cents/tree - Coast Range
02. $1,009,273 - 28.6 cents/tree - Celtic
03. $1,026,601 - 29.1 cents/tree - Blue Collar
04. $1,119,559 - 31.7 cents/tree - Folklore
05. $1,186,500 - 33.6 cents/tree - Apex
Attachments
FSJ 003b.jpg
FSJ 003b.jpg (569.81 KiB) Viewed 4455 times
FSJ 003a.jpg
FSJ 003a.jpg (581.59 KiB) Viewed 4455 times
PL18TJE003 Unverified Bid Results.jpg
PL18TJE003 Unverified Bid Results.jpg (127.14 KiB) Viewed 6831 times
PL18TJE003 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(74.77 KiB) Downloaded 53 times
PL18TJE003 Conditions of Tender.pdf
(79.86 KiB) Downloaded 270 times
PL18TJE003 Invitation To Tender.pdf
(93.52 KiB) Downloaded 29 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Sat Nov 26, 2016 8:53 am

I'll be posting a summary here in a couple weeks, to give some stats and context on the stats from this fall. Sort of a gala awards ceremony, if you will ... the number of trees and contracts and dollar amount won by each company, trophies for the biggest screw-ups and most money left on the table, the overall weighted bid price per tree for the year as a whole, etc. For instance, so far, three companies have left more than a hundred thousand dollars on the table apiece on the contracts which they've won. And one company has already taken more than ten million low-bid open market trees.

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Sat Nov 26, 2016 9:06 am

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Prince George

Contract: PL18DPG300
Client: FFT Program, Prince George (administered by Erafor)
Season: Spring 2017 (three year Option-To-Renew)
# of Trees: 1,552,031 (for 2017)

This was actually the first contract of the 2017 fall season, I just noticed that it didn't get posted earlier. Also, this is FFT ground, which is always much more challenging than fresh logging.

01. $545,253 - 35.1 cents/tree - Celtic
02. $548,338 - 35.3 cents/tree - Seneca
03. $558,685 - 36.0 cents/tree - Folklore
04. $567,853 - 36.6 cents/tree - Blue Collar
05. $570,386 - 36.8 cents/tree - Coast Range
06. $674,844 - 43.5 cents/tree - Spectrum
Attachments
PL18DPG300 Tender Opening Record.jpg
PL18DPG300 Tender Opening Record.jpg (296.64 KiB) Viewed 6783 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Sat Nov 26, 2016 9:23 am

Here are the results for a contract for Surveying Work in Williams Lake

Contract: FH17TLH010
Client: BCTS Williams Lake
Scope: 101 estimated person-days of work (86 field and 15 office), plus 120 hours of mapping

This one was well-bid, a very nice cluster of bids. The affected area is all to the north of Williams Lake, west of highway 97, mostly in the Makim and Meldrum areas. The work includes Fir-Spruce bark beetle probes, placing pheromone traps, doing layout of trap trees and blocks and roads and skid trails, GPS transverse, etc. I've included this bid in this topic because a small number of tree planters are interested in more than just three months of summer work when universities are out of session. There is more work out there for people that want to make a career of silviculture or other bush work.

01. $54,190 - Atlas Information Management
02. $55,684 - Westforest Consulting
03. $56,800 - Holtom Forestry Consulting
04. $62,150 - Cariboo Forest Consultants
05. $63,000 - Copeman Enterprises
06. $69,835 - Geoterra Integrated Resource Systems
07. $71,230 - Industrial Forestry Service (IFS)
Attachments
FH17TLA010 Unverified Bid Results.jpg
FH17TLA010 Unverified Bid Results.jpg (177.16 KiB) Viewed 6781 times
FH17TLH010 Tender Offer Form.pdf
(63.12 KiB) Downloaded 24 times
FH17TLA010 Focused Locations Map.pdf
(198.09 KiB) Downloaded 25 times
FH17TLA010 Conditions of Tender.pdf
(92.14 KiB) Downloaded 194 times

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Sat Nov 26, 2016 9:44 am

Here are results from another contract for Beetle Probe/Survey work in Williams Lake

Contract: FH17WLN005
Client: MOFLNRO Williams Lake
Time Frame: Winter 2016/2017

Here is the description of the job, from BC Bid:
The contract requires the completion of approximately 100, 50 m Star probe Surveys for Douglas-fir Bark Beetle (IBD), identified at or near the locations listed below. All sites are located within the Cariboo-Chilcotin and 100 Mile Natural Resource Districts. Access to some of the sites is unknown and may require the use of quad or snowmobile. The general locations of each site are shown on the overview map included with the tender package.

General Probing areas, subject to direction from the Contract Coordinator
- Bond Lake
- Onward Ranch
- Chimney Creek
- Felker Northwest
- Hwy 20, Pablo Creek, Desous Mtn
- Fraser Breaks Park
- Helena Lake
- 108 Mile
My guess is that the questions in the Q&A came from IFS.

01. $ 15,525 - Global Mapping Services
02. $ 18,569 - Aquilla Resources
03. $ 22,500 - Copeman Enterprises
04. $ 31,000 - Stswecem'c Xgat'tem Development
05. $ 34,130 - Zanzibar
06. $ 37,500 - D&D Forestry Consulting
07. $115,500 - Industrial Forestry Services (IFS)
Attachments
FH17WLN005 Unverified Bid Results.jpg
FH17WLN005 Unverified Bid Results.jpg (151.22 KiB) Viewed 6780 times
FH17WLN005 Tender Offer Form & ITT.pdf
(32.28 KiB) Downloaded 28 times
FH17WLN005 Questions and Answers.pdf
(514.59 KiB) Downloaded 87 times
FH17WLN005 Info for Bidders.pdf
(40.5 KiB) Downloaded 80 times

TripleS
Regular Contributor
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:20 pm

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by TripleS » Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:13 pm

As a new contractor, who hasn't had the opportunity to build up a discount through the contractor rating system, I think it's BS. A more fair system would simply add a percentage to the bid of those contractors who do not meet or exceed the criteria of BCTS. The way it is set up now certainly puts downward pressure on the bids of contractors in my position, as I now have to bid up to 7% lower than other companies to obtain work.

User avatar
Scooter
Site Administrator
Posts: 3709
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: New Brunswick
Contact:

Re: 2017 Public Bid Results

Post by Scooter » Sat Nov 26, 2016 8:24 pm

I believe that was a risk that was discussed and the stakeholders were willing to take. I'm not defending that, I'm just saying that's my understanding.

However, I think that in many cases, the Contractor Rating System won't be a problem for you. The reason I say this is because there's a bigger barrier to entry, which has been in place for many years. On a lot of BCTS contracts, there exist qualification criteria that must be met before someone is allowed to bid, and a type of qualification criteria that I've seen fairly often would be something along the lines of, "all bidders must prove successful completion within the past three years of at least one BCTS or MOF contract exceeding a size of 1 million seedlings." If you're a new entrant, it's not a case of a 7% disadvantage; you're simply not allowed to bid.

This is a rule which is either really good, or really bad, depending on your personal point of view. In your own case, as someone trying to break into the government market (always a questionable decision as BCTS work is usually priced so poorly), this system is bad. Yet for all other contractors, and even for 99.9% of the planters out there, it's a great system. If you didn't have barriers to entry, all kinds of companies would be putting bids in. And being a low-bid system, those companies would inevitably underbid existing contractors and win the work. Within 24 months, the industry would be destroyed and all existing companies would be driven out of work. Planter wages would drop to a market equilibrium - in this case, hovering around minimum wage. If you look through this thread even, you can see hints (within the saw work side of the bidding) where, when some clauses aren't put into place to help the more established companies, other small companies are coming in and bidding a fraction of the price. I'm pretty certain that if just anybody was allowed to bid on any government contract, you'd almost immediately see companies using outsourced labour, bidding 6 or 8 cents a tree. To the company.

As terrible as the existing low bid system is, it could be a lot worse. On a positive note, you only need a small contract for a single year to build your rating. And on another note, most companies out there don't have ratings that are that close to the full possible 7%. The average is closer to 3.5%.
A more fair system would simply add a percentage to the bid of those contractors who do not meet or exceed the criteria of BCTS.
That would be an interesting approach. I think that if you came up with a nice written proposal about how that could be implemented, the people in charge of the Contractor Rating System would read it with some interest. I believe that there's a meeting on December 5th to talk about a review of the system as piloted thus far.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests