2020 Public Bid Results

[Scooter]

The first job of the year opened today. I'm still planting right now with two helicopters in the air, so I'll get this topic started off properly sometime next week.

In the meantime, if you're a new viewer who isn't familiar with how the entire bidding process works for publicly tendered trees in BC, I'd recommend that you take several hours and read through all of the old annual bid result topics. If you skip the posts that actually have contract results, you can go through them much more quickly, and get a pretty good idea of how the system is set up. One of these days, if I ever find time, I'll write a detailed essay that explains the process in an organized format.

[Scooter]

I don't have official results yet for the first job that opened, but it was an FFT job in Prince George. Dewan was apparently the low bidder but was disqualified, and Seneca was in second place and probably got the job.

The foresters who put that online so early in the year probably got a much better price than they would have if they had posted the contract later. Smart move.

Right now, I only see one other contract online ... an FFT job in Fort Nelson. I would imagine that job will go for a fairly high price. There appears to be a clause in that one that I've never seen before: the planting contractor is responsible for negotiating road use agreements with the oil companies for access purposes. That could be highly risky, considering that a road owner can pull privileges at any time. We had our road access pulled from us a few weeks ago, on the third-to-last day of a contract, and had to fly everything quite a long distance the following day.

[Scooter]

The "Market Summit" in Kamloops will be held on Wednesday, September 25th. Here's more information:

https://wfca.ca/2019/08/wfca-2019-annua ... -16-08-19/

[jdtesluk]

Just a quick note, I would not refer to this as a "pricing" summit. It is a market summit that looks at a wide range of issues affecting the industry, of which one output is pricing. However, there is never any discussion of actual specific prices as that could comprise collusion....which of course is verboten. Last year we talked about treatment of workers, camp costs, viewing practices and many other things. Of course, there was a happy outcome in the prices paid to planters...which is good as it shows the industry adjusting toward more realistic market conditions.

[Scooter]

Thanks Jordan.

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Port Alberni

These are actually fall trees for the upcoming couple of months, not trees for 2020. However, since I already locked the 2019 topic, and we're starting to get into the bidding for 2020, I thought it would be more timely to include them in this topic.

Contract: PL20TCD020
Client: BCTS Port Alberni
# of Trees: 260,340
Season: Fall 2019
Left on the Table: 8.5%

This bid includes 5 persons at a day rate. Over 100k of these trees involve either boat, barge, or heli (or combinations thereof). Also some ATV work and some fill plants. This will be planted in September from Alberni & Ucluelet.

01. $203,998 - 78.4 cents/tree - Sitka
02. $221,272 - 85.0 cents/tree - Evergreen
03. $225,064 - 86.5 cents/tree - Brinkman

[Sunwatersoil]

From what I can gather, BCTS in the Cariboo/Chilcotin area is inviting contractors to apply to a short list that they will hand pick and offer a more exclusive bidding process to.

https://www.bcbid.gov.bc.ca/open.dll/sh ... ypeQual=TN

Request for Qualifications for Contractor Prequalification
10005-03/RFQ PL21-TCC01

The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (BC Timber Sales - Cariboo-Chilcotin Business Area; BC Timber Sales - 100 Mile House Timber Supply Area; and Cariboo - Chilcotin, 100 Mile House and Thompson Rivers Natural Resource Districts) are establishing a Select List of pre-qualified contractors specializing in Tree Planting who will be invited to participate in a subsequent Invitation to Tender for tree planting contracts to be completed by the Williams Lake and Quesnel field teams of the Cariboo-Chilcotin Business Area, BC Timber Sales; 100 Mile House (Field Team) Timber Supply Area, BC Timber Sales; and the Cariboo - Chilcotin, 100 Mile House and Thompson Rivers Natural Resource Districts during the term from April 1, 2020 to August 15, 2020. The subsequent agreement may be an option-to-renew contract renewable for a further term of up to twelve months, to a maximum of three terms.

Only those contractors having been pre-qualified will be invited to compete on the project.

The anticipated Term of the project is from April 1, 2019 to August 25, 2019. The resulting established Select List shall remain valid for one year from September 24, 2019 to September 23, 2020.

New contractors may be added to the Select List at any time throughout the year and will be evaluated in the same manner as contractors already on the list. The ministry does not guarantee evaluation and resulting short-listing of contractors wishing to compete on issued tenders.

Contractors interested in being evaluated for inclusion on the Select List are invited to obtain a Request for Qualifications information package containing complete details of the proposed project, the pre-qualification mandatory requirements, and complete instructions for submission. Information packages may be obtained only from the BC Bid website.

d-RFQ PL21-TCC01.pdf

Tree Planting
Request for Qualifications No. RFQ PL21TCC01

(96.19 KiB) Downloaded 232 times

d) If the estimated Contract value is $75,000 or more, and more than one Qualified
Supplier is available who has the necessary qualifications to carry out the project or
assignment based on the Province’s specific assessment of the qualifications, the
Province will invite all such Qualified Suppliers to compete for the project or
assignment.

4.1.8 The Province has no obligation to:
a) enter into a Contract with any one or more Qualified Suppliers; or
b) invite any one or more Qualified Suppliers to participate in competitive processes
for a Contract.

It appears they are attempting to refine the competitive BCBid system so that they may not necessarily award the lowest bidder with the contract. Reading into 4.1.8 they may also decide not to put a contract up for open competition. Does this mean that BCTS may begin offering direct awards?

4.1.10 The Province may not necessarily select the Qualified Supplier offering the lowest rates,
and may also review the qualifications or other criteria required for a specific project.

I'm sure BCTS managers in the rest of the province will be paying close attention to this experiment to see if it's a viable option in other districts. I hope that this short list and those future awards will be made public.

[Sunwatersoil]

Below are the Criteria in which contractors will be assessed.

5.2 Desirable Criteria
Responses meeting the mandatory requirements will be further assessed against the
following desirable criteria. A Respondent not reaching the minimum score will receive
no further consideration during the qualifications review.

Desirable Criteria Points
Available Minimum score (if applicable)
Management
Contractor Profile 15
Contractor Capacity/Stability 20
Contractor Personnel 25
Contractor Experience 20
Client References 20
Total points min 70 max 100

Equipment and Technology 25
Deliverables 25
Alternatives 25
Organization and Clarity of Submission 25
Total points min 70 max 100

[Scooter]

The Cariboo-Chilcotin has done this for years. Pretty standard practice. The "select list" that they create is pretty broad, and it isn't hard for any legitimate company to get added onto it. I think they're simply reserving the right to be able to eliminate companies that they don't think are capable of completing the work properly. If a company failed to be able to complete the contract, especially in times like right now when labour is in short supply, it would be very bad for the licensee (in this case, the government), for the planting industry as a whole, and for the taxpaying base of BC.

Think for instance that a construction company that normally does highway work suddenly gets the urge to put in a bid on a three million tree contract, because the son of the owner was a foreman for a year at "Superb Silviculture." He convinces daddy to put a bid in on a planting contract so he can build a new planting division, and daddy has the financial resources to lay down the bid deposit. That sort of scenario wouldn't benefit anyone.

In recent years, the bidding pool in Williams Lake has invariably been one of the largest in the province, so there is no evidence that their Select List is constraining the government's ability to receive a variety of competitive bids. There are a large variety of bidders each year, everything from small companies that plant less than a million trees per year, to the giants that plant thirty million plus. The viewing meetings often have sixteen or more companies represented, which is by far the largest pool that I've seen anywhere in western Canada.

With respect to the "not necessarily accepting the lowest bid," I think that's just a clause so if they get a bid from an experienced and competent company, but that company screwed up, they can say, "you misjudged this; we're doing you the favor of not awarding the work to you because it would just mean more headaches for us than we're willing to accept." Even companies with the best of intentions sometimes misjudge pricing/capability when they're looking at ground quickly.

[Sunwatersoil]

Is Cariboo-Chilcotin unique in offering this method of bidding?

[Scooter]

Dawson Creek usually does the same. I can't think of any others off the top of my head, although I suspect that there may be at least one more area that usually does this.

[salbrecher]

For the Alberni contract there is a comment in the "Info to bidders" section that states "For each planting unit, plot quality and stocking information must be collected by, or collected under, the direct supervision of a Qualified Professional who is a registered member of the ABCFP, either having an RPF or RFT designation". Is this common for most BCTS contracts? I know brinkman and several others have foresters on staff but what do others like Sitka or Evergreen, who bid on that contract, do to satisfy that requirement?

[Sunwatersoil]

It's my understanding that it's fairly common. I've had my plots reviewed, audited, and signed off on by an RPF employed by the planting contractor.
It seems to be another level of holding the contractors accountable for accurate data.

[Sunwatersoil]

This was also in Northern BC.

[Cyper]

I'd guess that around 20% of BCTS planting contracts require the planting contractor to have a qualified professional sign off on at least quality plots and provide a certification that the work has been done to contract standards. This happens more on the coast than in the interior. It just requires the planting contractor to hire an RPF or RFT to audit and sign off on the plots & final planting maps.

[Scooter]

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Campbell River


Contract: PL20TCG014
Client: BCTS Campbell River
Season: Fall 2019 and Spring 2020
# of Trees: 1,143,570
Date Opened: August 29th, 2019
Left on the Table: 8.6%

Again, this contract is partly for the fall of 2019 (ie. happening right away), but some of the trees are also being planted in Spring 2020. So I think it's smart to include it in the 2020 results topic.

Of the 1,143,570 trees, a total of just under half (534k) are to be planted this fall. This contract also includes 328,500 tea-bags (180k for this fall). It also includes 10,330 sinocast cones and 5,000 wire stucco cages for browse protection.

Unfortunately, competition is still strong on the coast, and the prices haven't yet seen the increases that we started to see in the Interior this year. Hopefully the coastal contractors start to realize that planters go where the best money is (regardless of whether or not that's within the industry), and right now, coastal earnings on some projects are not worth pursuing. This comment is directed at coastal planting in general, not at this particular contract.

01. $ 663,658 - 58.0 cents/tree - Evergreen
02. $ 720,802 - 63.0 cents/tree - Bivouac
03. $ 721,293 - 63.1 cents/tree - Brinkman
04. $ 879,879 - 76.9 cents/tree - Leader
05. $1,085,021 - 94.9 cents/tree - Fieldstone

[Cyper]

The sad reality on the coast is that there is no volume increase like there is in the interior and therefore there's no supply and demand dynamic creating an upswing in prices. This applies to early work up to the middle of April as well as fall work in September and October. For these time periods there are more planters who want work than there are positions for them. That's not to say that the contractors aren't at least to some degree their own worst enemies. The WFCA hasn't made any effort to get the coastal cabal together, but then why would they when most of the coast contractors don't belong to that organization?

[jdtesluk]

The sad reality on the coast is that there is no volume increase like there is in the interior and therefore there's no supply and demand dynamic creating an upswing in prices. This applies to early work up to the middle of April as well as fall work in September and October. For these time periods there are more planters who want work than there are positions for them. That's not to say that the contractors aren't at least to some degree their own worst enemies. The WFCA hasn't made any effort to get the coastal cabal together, but then why would they when most of the coast contractors don't belong to that organization?

Coastal operators that belong to the WFCA- Brinkman, Evergreen, Timberline, Zanzibar, Leader, Osprey, Kowhutzun.
I have also seen reps from many of the other coastal companies attend the WFCA conference, and I would also note that many more carry on some level of correspondence with the association and other member companies. I would say that most of the coastal volume is in fact linked to the WFCA.

There is indeed interest in getting the coastal contractors together, but you are correct to observe the differences between coast and interior with respect to volume and workforce, and that clearly presents a different difficult challenge. There have been coastal meetings in the past and those were not always followed by the kinds of changes many believe we need to see happen.

I guess the question is whether or not it is strictly a supply-and-demand sitaution with respect to the pricing of coastal work, or if there are other considerations and factors that can enter into the conversation? It is important to at least have a general picture of the moving pieces before calling a meeting. I think this is what some are wrestling with right now. .... Okay, the volume situation may not support cooperative behavior at this time.....What else is there to discuss, and what other strategies can be used to negotiate better prices with licensees? What about workforce relationships, and what is potentially happening with our coastal capacity as conditions/prices stagnate? What also does this mean for interior operations, given that those coastal planters represent an irreplaceable and elite cadre of skill and capacity that also drives interior operations. So many of our best workers and leaders slug it out on the coast before leading the charge in the interior.

I see lots of reasons for getting a coastal contractor meeting.....but it remains a challenge to pitch it in a manner that serves the collective and mutual interests of all key parties.

[Cyper]

Hey Jordan,
I appreciate your always salient and thoughtful opinions.
All it would take would be one of the contractors to make a few calls and organize a meeting. The need is obviously not great enough yet. It's too bad because the money, with some cooperation would definitely be there. From what I've heard, wages for pros are 25% lower on the coast than in the interior. There are some obvious exceptions where the "elite" are making big money in the inlets but most of the coast volume is low priced mid & south Island work. The workers deserve a big raise but there's so many of them that contractors don't have to compete to get them. Supply & demand is the heart of the problem

Your list of contractors is less than half of those working out here and maybe half of the volume. Timberline is not listed with the WFCA any more. Nick has moved on. His young successors seem disinterested.
There are lots of reasons besides wages to discuss raising prices. The cost of everything has gone up with accelerating fuel, transportation and safety costs as well as more tax grabs by our lovely governments.
In contrast to the interior there's not that much direct work that's negotiated, perhaps 25%. The low bid out here for the most part, is the law.

What's a contractors association for if not to lead it's members and their employees to a better and more lucrative tomorrow? They are conspicuous by their lack of leadership on the coast.
Perhaps they don't want to spearhead another coastal confab in case it turns out like the last one, where some noble ideas about higher bids were espoused but what followed was apparently ugly.
It's a wasted opportunity for sure.

[jdtesluk]

Cyp, your attention to detail is impressive. I didn't realize that Tline was no longer on the list until you pointed it out. I wouldn't consider the successors disinterested, but I also won't speculate an explanation on their behalf. While perhaps half the volume is directly linked to the association, I would stick to my assertion that many of those accounting for the other half (perhaps another quarter) remain in touch with the association. Still, I agree that your estimate is likely more accurate than mine with respect to volume accounted for by members. It is also probably fair to say, those that perform the most elite, remote, and high-paying jobs are not on the list of members. In that sense, those that are most affected by the decline are in fact tied together most closely by the association. I think your second to last sentence is a key factor in why a coastal meeting has note yet occurred. A second factor is simply bandwidth. So much energy and attention has been focused on addressing interior volume, that the coast simply hasn't been prioritized. I think you pose an entirely valid question with respect to coastal leadership. Of course, it remains a challenge to establish cooperation amidst competition, and the task of raising prices always runs into the obstacle that they (contractors) are strictly forbidden to discussing prices with each other as that swiftly strays into the dangerous area of collusion (price-fixing).....an offence that can be punished very harshly.

Your point about wages being 25% lower.....off the top of my head, I estimate you are probably very close to the mark and I've heard similar reports. THAT on its own is alarming and astounding....I can think of other adjectives but I'll leave it there.

Interestingly, with respect to low bid as law, there may be changes coming in that respect, including potential fixed bids at market value awarded on factors besides price. I cannot specify where that may occur, but if the model works, it provides a ray of hope. Indeed, there are limits on the awarded work on the coast, and I sense there has been a move towards more bid-out jobs by the licensees. Certainly the interior licensees are more concerned and motivated to hold onto reliable contractors that can guarantee success of their program, while the coastal licensees seem increasingly likely to bid it out to shave another penny.

[salbrecher]

Interestingly, with respect to low bid as law, there may be changes coming in that respect, including potential fixed bids at market value awarded on factors besides price. I cannot specify where that may occur, but if the model works, it provides a ray of hope.

There are Bids on BC Bid for fixed rate contracts right now. See "Tree Planting - Hanceville-Riske Creek Fire" on BC Bid.

Isn't the comment "fixed bids at market value" an oxymoron ?

[Scooter]

The fixed bids are a very new thing. The "market value" comment is based upon a financial assessment of where fair market pricing sits right now, and there have been attempts to figure out a fair market price for the area based upon last year's bids. The mindset is that if price is taken out of the equation, companies are then free to put in a bid for a specific job whereby they can showcase and be assessed upon the strengths of their company, such as their workforce, their safety record and safety plan, the resources they will commit to the job, etc.

It's an interesting experiment, and I think it's a good one to try. I'll be able to share more information about this in a few weeks, once I get a better understanding of it all. I'm currently planting on the coast, so I haven't started viewing yet myself.

Incidentally, with respect to the comments about wages being 25% lower on the coast than in the Interior, I agree. That's based upon talking to people at a few dozen companies, not just an assessment of my own earnings. As Cyper pointed out, there's a supply/demand imbalance in labour, which is not helpful to pricing. On a positive note, word is spreading that coastal prices are increasingly shitty and people should save their energy for their Interior seasons. I've had quite a few long-term planters bring that up with me recently. If someone is going to plant for 8-9 months per year, it needs to be financially appealing.

[Cyper]

Fixed bids are a scary idea. They are based on one persons assessment of market value. In this case Zanzibar's guesstimate. I hope they've viewed the blocks and also those from the prior year that they're using as a baseline. I notice in the rating system that very large companies with multiple camps of 70 or more planters get a higher rating. Go figure that these are contractors likely to do a better job on a contract that requires less than half that number of planters. I heard the mandatory viewing meeting for this work was so full that it was standing room only.

On another topic, the Contractor Rating System that BCTS has been trying to implement properly is once again being mismanaged. It has shown itself to be of little value. While very rarely affecting the outcome of bid auctions, it has added another layer of what appears to be useless and bungled bureaucracy. The amount of work required to comply with this poorly conceived rating system is just not worth it. Here's a quote from the bureaucrats just released to contractors:

"This is a message to participants regarding a delay in the BCTS Planting Contractor Rating System FY20 Ratings.
A possible error in the new rating system calculator tool has been found. It is currently being investigated and it is hoped this issue will be easily resolved.
FY20 ratings will be delayed, as every possible effort is made to ensure ratings are fair to all participants."

They've had months to get this together. This shows their commitment or lack thereof to the contracting community.

[jdtesluk]

The price is set by the administrator (Zanzibar) but there is still mandatory viewing for those that wish to participate and "bid". In that sense, potential "bidders" have every opportunity to decide if the price is appropriate for the job.

Your point about size of contractor attracts consideration. The assumption of course is that a larger contractor is more likely to be able to meet production demands, particularly for a job with an early end-date such as the Hainceville region which is planted earlier in the spring. Of course, we have all seen examples of larger companies needing to be bailed out on jobs they fell behind on....due to lack of production, having their crews working elsewhere (or on the coast), or seasonal wrenches-in-the-spokes. The assumption is of course that the company will have crews elsewhere, and be larger than this one contract. However, there is a valid point to consider....if a job requires 70 planters, should a company with 210 planters and multiple jobs be rated higher than a company with 70 planters and only one job? ... and is there a way to really determine how many jobs a company has during the bid review? I assume also, that even if a company has enough workers for the job, there is a presumed advantage if they have other potential reservoirs of planter power to draw upon if they get behind or run into an unseasonal bout of flood or fire or other f88kery. Should there be considerations for companies that have subcontractor arrangements? Or how about smaller companies that work together to combine their capacity to share a job?

As for the contractor rating system, you are correct to point out that few jobs have been awarded based on the rating change. One may ask also, if the rating system had prompted any companies (or at least increased motivation) to make positive changes in order to be more competitive on these factors? Hard question to answer, but I have noted more competitive pressure among companies to run a straight and safe ship over recent years. There are numerous reasons for this, and I would be truly challenged to define this observation in clearly measurable criteria. Nonetheless, I recognize a positive influence by any system that compels companies to evaluate and improve their operations on fronts other than dollars and cents. Still, the flaws in the current systems cannot be ignored.

[Scooter]

Here's my analysis about the current state of the industry for fall 2019:
www.replant.ca/stateoftheindustry

It's also shared in this facebook link:
www.facebook.com/groups/replant.ca/perm ... 303306995/

[Scooter]

Here are some upcoming results to look forward to:

BCTS Okanagan Columbia South - October 1st
MOF Williams Lake Hanceville - October 3rd (4 contracts) - Two of these four are fixed price with bids due Oct 3, but results released a week later.
MOF Quesnel Nazko - October 3rd
BCTS Vanderhoof - October 3rd (TJE002)
BCTS Vanderhoof - October 8th (TJE003)
BCTS Arrow South - October 16th
BCTS Arrow North - October 17th
BCTS East Kootenay - October 22nd (TFH001)
BCTS East Kootenay - October 23rd (TFH002)
BCTS Fort St James - October 24th (two contracts, TJE004 and TJE005)
BCTS Burns Lake - November 19th

And I'm sure there are probably more that I've overlooked. Bottom line, results are starting to come out this week.

[Scooter]

I just realized that the MOF Fort Nelson results haven't been shared yet. If anyone has a copy, please feel free to email me so I can share them here. I'd like to include them in this year's Bid Results Spreadsheet.

[Scooter]

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Okanagan South

Contract: PL21TKN001
Client: BCTS Vernon
Season: Spring & Summer 2020
# of Trees: 1,547,598
Option-to-Renew: Yes
Left on the Table: 9.6%

This contract included 830,688 spring and 716,910 summer trees. Looks like the northern companies wisely understand the supply/demand imbalance in the northern half of the province, and are biding their time to wait for something juicy to fall into their laps. An excellent early show of self-restraint, especially by Summit.

01. $ 779,945 - 50.4 cents/tree - Zanzibar
02. $ 854,462 - 55.2 cents/tree - Raven Ventures
03. $ 867,307 - 56.0 cents/tree - Blue Collar
04. $ 925,090 - 59.8 cents/tree - Celtic
05. $1,073,722 - 69.4 cents/tree - Summit

[Scooter]

Remember that everyone can (I think) set a "subscribe" to this topic, so you get an email any time that someone makes a new post here. Go to the bottom of the page, and just to the right of the red "Post Reply" button, you should see a wrench icon with a drop-down choice. In that drop-down, there should be an option to automatically subscribe to notifications for new posts. I believe this option should be visible for all users, not just for myself as the Admin.

For some reason, when I just did it myself, it said that there was an error and it didn't work. However, when I attempted to do it a second time, my down-down had an "unsubscribe" option instead of "subscribe," so it should actually be working.

[Cyper]

I don't have official results yet for the first job that opened, but it was an FFT job in Prince George. Dewan was apparently the low bidder but was disqualified, and Seneca was in second place and probably got the job.

The foresters who put that online so early in the year probably got a much better price than they would have if they had posted the contract later. Smart move.

Right now, I only see one other contract online ... an FFT job in Fort Nelson. I would imagine that job will go for a fairly high price. There appears to be a clause in that one that I've never seen before: the planting contractor is responsible for negotiating road use agreements with the oil companies for access purposes. That could be highly risky, considering that a road owner can pull privileges at any time. We had our road access pulled from us a few weeks ago, on the third-to-last day of a contract, and had to fly everything quite a long distance the following day.

I haven't seen results for either of the jobs mentioned in your post above. Once again MOFL is being very secretive with public money. They don't post the tender results nor the award on BC Bid. They also won't comply with freedom of information requests.

[Scooter]

I just made an amendment to one of my posts above (the list of upcoming openings). For the jobs administered by Zanzibar, I believe that the two in Williams Lake are fixed price and today is just the due date for the proposals. The awards won't be made for a week. I think the two in Quesnel are normal low bid, and potentially should be opened this afternoon.

[Scooter]

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Vanderhoof

Contract: PL21TJE002
Client: BCTS Vanderhoof
Season: Spring 2020
# of Trees: 1,145,000
Left on the Table: way too much - 21.4%

The real story here is not the fact that six figures were left on the table. It's that a lot of people (including myself) were at a viewing meeting in Williams Lake today (probably 12-16 different companies), and I'm starting to feel that it's not going to be possible to get all the work done by the end of June this year. There are FAR more trees being tendered than I expected.

I think the real lesson here for company owners is not to underestimate the effects of supply and demand on the market. There are too many trees. Don't assume that your competitors will be chasing work. The real winners will be the companies who still have the capacity to bid in late November.

01. $504,970 - 44.1 cents/tree - Rhino
02. $613,159 - 53.6 cents/tree - Celtic
03. $628,927 - 54.9 cents/tree - Folklore
04. $629,862 - 55.0 cents/tree - Coast Range
05. $722,768 - 63.1 cents/tree - Apex
06. $753,668 - 65.8 cents/tree - Seneca
07. $757,133 - 66.1 cents/tree - Spectrum

[Scooter]

I'm not sure if this will be useful to anyone, but it might be if you're trying to find these bids on a computer other than the one that you typically use.

I just set up a "custom redirect" link to the Public Bid Results forum. This one should be easy to remember, hopefully:

replant.ca/publicbids

So that link above isn't actually a working link from this page (because I don't want it to turn blue and shorten), but if you type it into a browser URL line, it will take you directly to the bid results forum.

[Scooter]

Here's one that I overlooked, since it came out in early August, and wasn't posted in the Unverified Bid Results section on BC Bid. Thanks to the contractor who sent me the bid sheet!

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

Contract: PL21DPG600
Client: MOF Prince George
# of Trees: 1,050,794
Season: Spring 2020
Option-to-Renew: No
Left on the Table: 6.6%

This contract is a FFT (Forests For Tomorrow) funded contract.

01. $375,289 - 35.7 cents/tree - Dewan Enterprises
02. $399,904 - 38.1 cents/tree - Seneca Enterprises
03. $401,217 - 38.2 cents/tree - Folklore Contracting
04. $419,723 - 39.9 cents/tree - Blue Collar Silviculture
05. $458,248 - 43.6 cents/tree - Celtic Reforestation
06. $548,733 - 52.2 cents/tree - Artisan Reforestation
07. $569,555 - 54.2 cents/tree - Coast Range
08. $592,979 - 56.4 cents/tree - Apex Reforestation
09. $619,962 - 59.0 cents/tree - Dynamic Reforestation
10. $693,524 - 66.0 cents/tree - 0690528 BC Ltd. (Whanau Forestry)

[Scooter]

Also, at a recent viewing meeting, there was a bit of amusement as everyone watched a few of the foresters trying to get into their own FTP site. Trust me, we've all been there. So to simplify things, here's a set of instructions for everyone:

Go to this link:
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/

If you click on the link above, you'll see a root directory for all offices and districts. Conversely, if you know the three-letter acronym of the office that you're trying to find, you can do it in this format:
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/TKA

In the above example, I used TKA (the abbreviation for BCTS Kamloops) but you can substitute any other office or district acronym.

From this point, you typically have to click through a couple more layers, usually External and Outgoing, then you'll start to see the good stuff.

This stuff is technically all visible to the public (and you can find links with a google search), but rest assured that they don't post anything really confidential. There's also an auto-purge function so when they post some maps, the files are automatically removed by the system a week later. So you'll see tons of directories, but very few of them have any content.

BC Timber Sales Business Areas

You may recognize some of these abbreviations from being in the middle of request keys on box-end stickers.

TBA – Babine Timber Sales Office. Covers Burns Lake, Houston, Smithers.
TCC – Cariboo/Chilcotin Timber Sales Office. Covers Williams Lake, Quesnel.
TCH – Chinook Timber Sales Office. Covers Chilliwack, Queen Charlotte City.
TKA – Kamloops Timber Sales Office. Covers Kamloops, 100 Mile House, Clearwater, Merritt.
TKO – Kootenay Timber Sales Office. Covers Nelson, Castlegar, Cranbrook, Grand Forks.
TOC – Okanagan/Columbia Timber Sales Office. Covers Vernon, Revelstoke.
TPL – Peace/Liard Timber Sales Office. Covers Dawson Creek, Fort Nelson, Fort St. John.
TPG – Prince George Timber Sales Office. Covers Prince George, Mackenzie.
TST – Seaward/Tlasta Timber Sales Office. Port McNeill, Price Rupert.
TSK – Skeena Timber Sales Office. Covers Terrance, Hazelton.
TSG – Strait of George Timber Sales Office. Covers Campbell River, Port Alberni, Powell River.
TSN – Stuart/Nechako Timber Sales Office. Covers Vanderhoof, Fort St. James.


BC Forest Region and District Boundaries

Southern Interior Forest Region (headquartered in Kamloops):

DMH – 100 Mile House Forest District. Covers 100 Mile House.
DAB – Arrow Boundary Forest District. Covers Castlegar, Grand Forks, Nakusp.
DCS – Cascades Forest District. Covers Merritt, Lillooet, Princeton.
DCC – Central Cariboo Forest District. Covers Williams Lake, Horsefly, Likely.
DCH – Chilcotin Forest District. Covers Alexis Creek.
DCO – Columbia Forest District. Covers Revelstoke, Golden.
DHW – Headwaters Forest District. Covers Clearwater, McBride.
DKA – Kamloops Forest District. Covers Kamloops.
DKL – Kootenay Lake Forest District. Covers Nelson.
DOS – Okanagan Shuswap Forest District. Covers Vernon, Penticton, Salmon Arm.
DQU – Quesnel Forest District. Covers Quesnel.
DRM – Rocky Mountain Forest District. Covers Cranbrook, Invermere.

Northern Interior Forest Region (headquartered in Prince George):

DFN – Fort Nelson Forest District. Covers Fort Nelson.
DJA – Fort St. James Forest District. Covers Fort St. James.
DKM – Kalum Forest District. Covers Terrace.
DMK – Mackenzie Forest District. Covers Mackenzie.
DND – Nadina Forest District. Covers Burns Lake, Houston.
DPC – Peace Forest District. Covers Dawson Creek, Fort St. John.
DPG – Prince George Forest District. Covers Prince George.
DSS – Skeena Stikine Forest District. Covers Smithers, Dease Lake, Hazelton.
DVA – Vanderhoof Forest District. Covers Vanderhoof.

Coast Forest Region (headquartered in Nanaimo):

DCR – Campbell River Forest District. Covers Campbell River.
DCK – Chilliwack Forest District. Covers Chilliwack.
DNC – North Coast Forest District. Covers Prince Rupert.
DIC – North Island Central Coast Forest District. Covers Port McNeill, Hagensborg.
DQC – Queen Charlotte Islands Forest District. Covers Queen Charlotte City.
DSI – South Island Forest District. Covers Port Alberni, Duncan.
DSQ – Squamish Forest District. Covers Squamish.
DSC – Sunshine Coast Forest District. Covers Powell River, Sechelt.

[Scooter]

Also, thanks to the foresters who are starting to put a copy of their full map packages as a single zip file on the FTP site, in addition to the slew of individual maps. Downloading the zip file is MUCH faster for us (although it's also nice to have the option to grab individual maps, in case we're only looking for a single document).

[Scooter]

Here's one that I overlooked, since it came out in early August, and wasn't posted in the Unverified Bid Results section on BC Bid. Thanks to the contractor who sent me the bid sheet!

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

Contract: PL21DPG600
Client: MOF Prince George
# of Trees: 1,050,794
Season: Spring 2020
Option-to-Renew: No
Left on the Table: 6.6%

This contract is a FFT (Forests For Tomorrow) funded contract.

EDIT: This contract was awarded to Seneca, as noted in a post further down this page.

01. $375,289 - 35.7 cents/tree - Dewan Enterprises
02. $399,904 - 38.1 cents/tree - Seneca Enterprises
03. $401,217 - 38.2 cents/tree - Folklore Contracting
04. $419,723 - 39.9 cents/tree - Blue Collar Silviculture
05. $458,248 - 43.6 cents/tree - Celtic Reforestation
06. $548,733 - 52.2 cents/tree - Artisan Reforestation
07. $569,555 - 54.2 cents/tree - Coast Range
08. $592,979 - 56.4 cents/tree - Apex Reforestation
09. $619,962 - 59.0 cents/tree - Dynamic Reforestation
10. $693,524 - 66.0 cents/tree - 0690528 BC Ltd. (Whanau Forestry)

[Scooter]

The PL21DPG600 contract (results posted earlier) has been awarded to Seneca (2nd place) rather than Dewan (lowest bidder).

[Scooter]

I find it very odd that some of the contracts this year don't list the number of total trees on the contract in either the eAdvertisement, the Invitation to Tender, the Info for Bidders, or as a summary note at the bottom of the Tender Offer Form. Apparently the government can no longer afford to give calculators to their staff.

[Scooter]

Partial results from the two Hanceville Fire contracts administered by Zanzibar are now known. Dynamic got one, and Brinkman got the second. I'm not sure which company is doing which contract, but I'll update later once I find out.

It will only be about a week before we start seeing some results coming out hard and fast. I'm only aware of one public tender that closes this week, but 14 more contracts close the following week. And that's just the start.

Numbers, not unexpectedly, already look very strong. I'll have some notes about that topic here later this week.

Here's one thing to consider: Renewable contracts. There are already several contracts out there are are still in effect from previous years. Therefore, some offices won't be tendering, because they're still in agreement with a contractor as part of a multi-year (assuming that the contractors or foresters don't back out).

4,226,423 is the approximate number of trees being planted in 2020 that are part of multi-year contracts stemming from 2018 (or earlier).
16,043,902 is the approximate number of trees being planted in 2020 that are part of multi-year contracts that were signed in 2019.
-------------
20,270,325 is the total, trees that are publicly funded work in BC that won't show up as new tenders.

Keep in mind also that most multi-year contracts allow for a slight variation in the number of trees awarded in subsequent years, and in the current climate, it's likely that those numbers will be higher in 2020 than in the initial years, as foresters try to squeeze as many trees as possible into existing contracts).

A suggestion to planters reading this: If you work for a company that wins a contract, you should share the results on social media, along with a link back to this forum (so planters get a better idea of the overall direction of the market). This may help ensure that company owners are VERY careful about their bids. The industry needs a large number of workers in 2020, and the best way to ensure that is for experienced planters to see positive movement in pricing, which will encourage them to return for another season in 2020. Once again, the ball is in the court of the owners who are putting together public bids right now.

[Scooter]

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

Contract: PL21TFG001
Client: BCTS Nelson
# of Trees: 854,390
Season: Spring 2020
Opened: October 16th, 2019
Left on the Table: 23.8%

Another stunning amount left on the table. I'm sure some of the planters that work at West Arm will say, "But they pay really well!" I know they do, but they could pay even better if they didn't leave $127,285 on the table.

On a positive note, bids are increasing from last year's numbers.

01. $535,122 - 62.6 cents/tree - West Arm Silviculture
02. $662,407 - 77.5 cents/tree - Zanzibar
03. $679,686 - 79.6 cents/tree - Evergreen

[mwainwright]

Hindsight is always 20-20 when it comes to bid results. I don't disagree that they could have bid higher, but I bet they need that job a lot more than their competitors. A small local company's season can be made or broken by winning or losing a job like that.

[Scooter]

I do agree with you there, it's nice to see local companies winning bids. Just regrettable that they've been out of touch with the market prices for a couple years in a row. Right now, super fast ground up north has been going for 45 to 55 cents, and that's ground where planters can put in double what they could in technical ground down south.

But on a positive note, they did bid slightly higher for the job this year than they did last year. So at least they knew the direction of the market.

[mwainwright]

True that

[Scooter]

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Arrow North

Contract: PL21TFG002
Client: BCTS Nelson
Season: Spring 2020
# of Trees: 778,234
Date Opened: October 17th, 2019
Left on the Table: 9.6%

01. $426,027 - 54.7 cents/tree - Greenpeaks
02. $466,815 - 60.0 cents/tree - Evergreen
03. $588,922 - 75.7 cents/tree - Zanzibar

[Scooter]

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Vanderhoof

Contract: PL21TJE003
Client: BCTS Vanderhoof
# of Trees: 1,212,111
Season: Spring 2019
Date Opened: October 17th, 2019
Left on the Table: 14.1%

High prices for the Vanderhoof area, considering that this region typically saw bid prices between 24 and 28 cents only five or six years ago. This is a good sign that planter prices may finally get back to their inflation-adjusted historical averages from the decade up to the start of the Great Recession of 2008.

01. $551,846 - 45.5 cents/tree - Dewan
02. $629,528 - 51.9 cents/tree - Folklore Contracting
03. $636,419 - 52.5 cents/tree - Spectrum
04. $742,603 - 61.3 cents/tree - Seneca
05. $747,044 - 61.6 cents/tree - Coast Range

[Scooter]

The Communique, from the WFCA:

2019 Annual Business and Market Summit Communique

With next year’s 40-million seedling increase—almost all of it concentrated in the already busy spring planting window—all of us in B.C. reforestation, not just contractors, are headed into uncharted territory. It doesn’t mean we are all lost. But it does mean 2020, with its estimated total 308 million seedlings (or more), will not be a business-as-usual year for any of us.

The Western Forestry Contractors’ Association (WFCA) does not control the market, nor can it intervene in it. That would be improper. But what the WFCA has done, and will continue to do, is gather and share information along with all parties who have a stake in reforestation in the province. That would include our own members as well as our licensee clients, BC Timber Sales, the Forest Carbon Initiative, Forests For Tomorrow, MFLNRORD and so on. We can only hope that this cooperation will lead to better communication and coordination in planning for and delivering the best results next year.

Two significant standouts came from last month’s WFCA 2019 Annual Business and Market Summit regarding the planting contracting community’s general disposition towards the 2020 market. First, there is a broad willingness to step up to the challenges next year’s exceptional volume increase represents. This optimism comes while recognizing there are real risks to owners when their companies and the sector are being asked to expand by so much so rapidly.

The second finding is that contractors fully appreciate the importance of successfully planting not only licensee obligations, but all the public-funded trees that have entered the open market lately. In particular, this means delivering on the expectations of the Forest Carbon Initiative next year and in future years. Not only has this additional volume assisted in addressing the problematic trends around recruitment, retention, and worker earnings the sector was experiencing, it holds the promise of being extended beyond the current forecasts as mitigating climate change increases as a public priority. Presently the harvest and lumber manufacturing sector is heading through the turbulence of adapting to its present supply and market problems. Industry reforestation deferrals and curtailments may already be happening.

Contractors understand that reliable and continuing demand from public programs for carbon sequestration and land restoration will help stabilize their sector in coming years.

This year planting contractors passed on much of the rise in bid prices to workers as an increase in piece rates. That has led to better earnings, more satisfied workers, and higher expected retention rates for next year. Employers still expect they will have to hire hundreds of trainees, along with supervisors and managers, next year. To aid one another in finding more effective ways to produce productive and safe workers employers are sharing their best practices for training workers. The WFCA is looking at ways to raise the profile of the reforestation sector to attract more recruits by promoting its positive work and working style.

Contractors are altering some of the sector’s business-to-business relationships by forming consortiums through sub-contracting projects or portions of projects. This cooperative practice can ensure that the sector’s capacity can most efficiently find its way to where it is needed. The WFCA is examining how it could play a role next spring as a kind of clearing house where information could be exchanged between employers and clients about where resources are needed and who has them available.

The WFCA commends MFLNRORD for extending the spring cold storage seedling planting window by nine days. In theory, with the industry running at peak production, this could deliver the additional 40-million seedlings the sector is expected to find ways to plant next spring. But no one should count on that. There are just too many extant and inherent variables to the planting season likely to spoil that calculation. Nevertheless, the WFCA is urging foresters who have bio-geoclimatic areas that can tolerate cold storage planting in late June and early July to use them to relieve some of the intense pressure building on the normal spring planting window.

The WFCA is also asking our clients in both the public and private sector to make sure they are not creating unrealistic or false imperatives for contractors to live up to regarding scheduling, size, and other aspects of their individual projects. In today’s market the immediate effect of these expectations will be to drive up price and/or reduce the number of bidders. Not only will these kinds of demands cost more, they risk creating logistical and timing distortions that will accumulate, frustrating the sector’s ability as a whole to efficiently direct its resources to where they are needed.
Since last year we have provided guidance to our industry and government clients around how to optimize the available capacity in the reforestation sector
https://wfca.ca/2019/08/western-forestr ... -issue-12/

We hope this advice has reached all the managers and planners it needs to. Included in those recommendations are appeals to our client managers to exercise some forbearance, patience, flexibility and imagination in how they treat contractors and administer their projects next year. We are asking licensees and public land managers to take some risks, like the contractors are, by acting constructively to help us all live up to the collective necessity of planting every seedling in 2020.

[Scooter]

If you're viewing, be careful out there. I'm coming across these almost every day.

[Scooter]

If you're a forester right now, you're probably trying to figure out how to manage your budget, considering that planting prices are trending back (somewhat) to be on par with their inflation-adjusted historical numbers from the 1990's and early 2000's. Some foresters (most in the private sector) are cutting back slightly on volumes, others are dropping helicopter blocks from their programs, and some are eliminating fertilizer packs (tea-bags).

I'd like to throw out a suggestion that may be useful for a few foresters: Take a close look at your planting specs. To be clear, I'm not saying, "Let us plant shitty trees."

Instead, I'd like to take a close look at the science and math behind certain specs, specifically as they relate to spacing/density/excess. I'm going to refer to the FS 704 system which is used by BC government offices, and also used by many private mills throughout the province and in Alberta.

One of the goals when the FS 704 was designed was to build in a "spacing tolerance" to allow the planter some leeway in picking the best microsite, or the best spot to plant a tree. Yes, hitting a specific target density within a block is important, but the designers of the 704 system didn't want to be so rigid that planters would simply plant a tree at the perfect spacing every time, with no regard for how suitable that microsite was for the tree. If there was no spacing tolerance, the benefits of hitting density would be outweighed by decreased yields and increased mortality from trees being planted in poor spots. A planter might plant a tree in a pile of sticks or needles or chunky red rot, instead of planting in a microsite only 12 inches away that had appropriate soils.

In general, depending on the region, spacing tolerances usually allow for about a meter of tolerance. For example, if the target spacing is 2.7m between each tree (thinking in both the X/Y axis, or both "ahead" and "laterally") then a simple generalization is that a tree is considered to be good if the tree is somewhere between 1.7m and 3.7m away from all of the other trees around it. You don't want all of them to be only 1.7m away from the others, or all of them to be 3.7m away from the others; you want a healthy mix of some closer and some further, so the overall average spacing still balances out to be pretty close to the target (2.7m in this example). However, this variability or spacing tolerance allows the planters to feel more comfortable in looking for the best microsites for the trees, without having to worry too much that they're going to get faulted for "tree too close" or "missed spot" penalties. Having a spacing tolerance is ultimately what's best for the plantation, as long as the planters utilize the tolerance to hit the best microsites for the trees.

We've seen an increase over the past several years in the amount of FFT (Forests For Tomorrow) funding on reforestation contracts in BC, mainly due to wildfire restoration. Traditionally, the average target spacing on BCTS and MOF contracts within British Columbia was usually in the range of 1400-1600 stems/Ha (except on the coast). However, a lot of FFT funding is attached to projects and blocks where the target spacing has climbed to 2000 stems/Ha or even more. And I'm not disagreeing with this change. A lot of the wildfire damage has come in pine stands, for multiple reasons (pine is more dominant on dried ground, mountain pine beetle has killed and dried a lot of standing pine, etc.). Pine is a species which grows better at higher densities. If you're going to plant one stand at 2400 stems/Ha and another at 1600 stems/Ha, and you have pine for one stand and spruce/fir for the other, you're almost certainly going to plant the pine in the high density stand.

The problem is that while densities have frequently increased from 1600 stems/Ha to 2000 stems/Ha, there hasn't always been a corresponding drop in "minimum acceptable inter-tree distances" (MITD), more casually known as "minimums." The minimum spacing on 1600 stems was usually 2.0m between trees. Unfortunately, the minimums on some 2000 stem target densities are still set at 2.0m.

To be clear, for non-foresters who are reading this, a 2.0m minimum means that if you plant two trees and they're 2.1m apart, that's acceptable. If they're 2.0m apart, that's acceptable. If they're less than 2.0m apart, one of the two trees gets faulted as a "too close" tree, which gets counted as a quality fault under the FS 704 system, and a reduction in the assessed quality of the block means a reduction in payment to the planting company.

Let's look at the TARGET spacing distances that are required to meet various densities:

1000 stems/Ha = 3.4 meter average spacing
1200 stems/Ha = 3.1 meter average spacing
1400 stems/Ha = 2.9 meter average spacing
1600 stems/Ha = 2.7 meter average spacing
1800 stems/Ha = 2.5 meter average spacing
2000 stems/Ha = 2.4 meter average spacing

Under a target density of 1600 stems/Ha, all trees are supposed to be 2.7 meters apart (on average). This means that with a 2.0m minimum, the planter has at least 70 centimeters (on the close side) to work with. There's also a tolerance on the "further apart" side, but the method of calculating that exact distance is complex (it relates to "missed spot" assessments). Let's just focus on the close side. Under a target density of 1400 stems/Ha, the trees need to be about 2.9m apart, which means that the spacing tolerance before being assessed as "too close" has increased to 90 centimeters.

Let me switch focus for a moment here, and go back to the goal of hitting the best possible microsites for the trees. On some planting contracts, foresters ask for "obstacle planting" to come into play. This approach asks the planters to plant seedlings beside an "obstacle" to maximize growth and/or survival. Typically, logs and stumps are viewed as excellent obstacles (unless root diseases in stumps is a consideration). A planter can even consider a big rock to count as an obstacle if there are no stumps or logs that are close enough. There are different reasons why obstacle planting is useful. In cattle country, a cow is less likely to step on a seedling if it is very close to a stump or log. In the Alberta foothills of the Rocky Mountains, a tree planted on the correct side of an obstacle is possibly protected from chinook winter winds that lead to exposure and desiccation (snow is a good insulating blanket in the winter). Anywhere that extreme heat is a problem, a tree planted on the northeast side of an obstacle is usually protected from the hottest afternoon sun, at least for the first couple years. Expect obstacle planting to be useful then in both cattle country and in the most southern regions of Alberta and BC. The relative "direction" of the obstacle (in relation to the microsite for the seedling) is important when weather-related, and unimportant when cattle-related.

If a planter is being asked to seek obstacles, the spacing tolerance comes into play. Depending on the terrain, there may be anywhere from a few to a dozen "acceptable obstacles" in a plot. When there are less obstacles than trees, it becomes obvious that not every tree can have an obstacle. It also becomes obvious that the planter has to think carefully about where to put trees, in order to maximize the use of any obstacles that are available.

Let's say that there are only five useful obstacles in a given "plot" (a section of the block covering 50 square meters). Without delving deeply into the math, you can multiply the number of obstacles in a plot by 200 to come up with the expected number of obstacles in a full hectare (because 50 square meters is 1/200th of a hectare). So if you multiply 5 x 200 you get 1000 obstacles per hectare. You can use the same spacing chart above to see that the obstacles, on average, are about 3.4 meters apart.

If the "perfect spacing" for your next tree puts the tree in a very specific microsite, and you have a 70 cm spacing tolerance away from that spot, what is the chance that you'll be able to utilize a good obstacle if the average spacing between obstacles is 3.4 meters? You might be close enough to an obstacle to use it, or you might not be. You'll certainly be able to hit some of the obstacles in your piece, but not all. The math (and spacing rules) may make it impossible to hit all obstacles. But a larger spacing tolerance is better than a small one.

Going back to the high planting densities on FFT funded work (usually 2000 stems/Ha), the planters don't have a lot to work with in cases where the minimum has not be adjusted downward. For 2000 stem density, the average spacing is 2.4m. If the minimum is 2.0m, the planters only have 40 centimeters to work with. Look down at the ground (or floor) right now, and imagine that. If you put an "X" on a specific spot, you have only a little over fifteen inches of flexibility that you can use to move the tree from that "X" and still be within your tolerance. What's the chance that you'll be able to find an acceptable obstacle in that very small area?

My camp planted a BCTS contract last year with target spacing of 2000 stems/Ha, a minimum of 2.0m, and a requirement to try to utilize obstacles. It was terrible. The science made it almost impossible for the planters to meet all three requirements simultaneously. They made a valiant effort. When I said that 2000 stems/Ha was the priority, they could do it. When I said that no trees could be closer together than 2.0m, they could do it. And when I said that they should try to hit obstacles, they did it. In fact, they could even do any two of those three things simultaneously, with no problems. But doing all three simultaneously was almost impossible. My solution was to ask the forester what should be sacrificed. There wasn't much movement on minimums, and I was told that obstacles were really important, so I said that my only solution would be to tell the planters not to worry much about the density. I told them to consider obstacles and minimums to be very important. Although a density of 2000 stems/ha was requested, there were no penalties in the contract for planting a lower density. However, there were penalties for planting trees too close (B1, a quality fault) or not utilizing the obstacles. In the end, we ended up having tons of trees left over after we finished planting all the regular blocks on the contract, and we had to scramble to find a number of overflow blocks to accommodate the rest of the trees. This was a challenge, both for us and for the foresters. But in the end, it was the inevitable choice.

I see that a lot of contracts this year, in one region in particular, are once again asking for that difficult combination of 2000 density, obstacle planting, and a 2.0m minimum. That's unfortunate. I would think that the industry would realize that this is a big mistake, and these specs are very problematic for planters. And "problematic" leads to higher bid prices. The problem could be mitigated by reducing the MITD down to 1.6m as acceptable. Foresters would be more likely to achieve their planned densities, and there would be better utilization of obstacles. In many other regions, minimum spacing ranges from 1.5m down to as low as 1.0m.

For this year, I've asked my employer to bid especially high on those contracts, because I don't want my camp to work there. For foresters who are trying to manage their budgets, a bit of flexibility on these specs would lead to more competitive bidding. In the past, I've really enjoyed working with the foresters in the region that I'm referring to. But in the end, I have to think about the best interests' of my planters, and seek to work elsewhere.


Here's a link to this same post on my planting blog:
https://jonathan-scooter-clark.blogspot ... nsity.html

[Sunwatersoil]

Yes, hitting a specific target density within a block is important, but the designers of the 704 system didn't want to be so rigid that planters would simply plant a tree at the perfect spacing every time, with no regard for how suitable that microsite was for the tree. If there was no spacing tolerance, the benefits of hitting density would be outweighed by decreased yields and increased mortality from trees being planted in poor spots. A planter might plant a tree in a pile of sticks or needles or chunky red rot, instead of planting in a microsite only 12 inches away that had appropriate soils.

I can't stress enough how common this is. Planters intending to do their job to the best of their ability will weigh density and microsite selection in the split seconds they have to choose their next microsite. It's common to find questionable trees on account of compounding uncooperative specs. As a company checker I saw first hand how planter moral, tree numbers, and tree quality increased on account of a reduction of minimum spacing. By reducing minimum spacing and offering reasonable expectations the planters were able to focus on choosing good microsites and obstacles with less concern of retribution for using closely spaced obstacles to their advantage.

[Scooter]

If the MITD does not allow for sufficient spacing tolerance, it actually leads to planters planting in bad microsites, rather than encouraging good microsites.