2018 Public Bid Results

Post by **Scooter** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:51 pm

Here are ... no certain results ... for a contract for doing Fir Beetle work in Williams Lake

Contract: FH18DCC001
Client: Ministry of Forests Williams Lake

This is an odd release, having the names redacted. I can only assume that once the contract has been signed, they'll release the names beside the bid amounts, considering that this is public money. This is also a HUGE spread between the lowest and highest bid.

Something is odd with this one. I'm sure we'll have updates here within a month or so.

I've attached some of the relevant contract documents to the bottom of this post. The rest can be found using the Advanced Search option on BC Bid.

Post by **Scooter** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:02 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Aspen Planting in Vanderhoof

Contract: PL19DSN020
Client: MOF Vanderhoof
# of Trees: 25,452
Season: Spring 2018
Contractor Rating System: N/A (MOF doesn't participate)
Left on the Table: 52.1%

This is an interesting contract. It's a small planting contract, but it looks like it's going to be done by a logging contractor. Possibly they have someone on staff with previous planting experience. I can't imagine that they'd expect to be able to hire planters to get that project done with external staff.

The amount left on the table is huge in percentage terms, but not that large in absolute dollars since the project is so small. However, the logging company may wonder if they made a mistake on this one, considering that other companies that have access to large pools of cheap seasonal student labour are bidding significantly higher. And if they were planning on hiring inexperienced planters, I wonder if they're aware of the minimum wage regulations in BC.

Also, the trees (large plugs) are located in Edmonton, and shipping from Edmonton to Vanderhoof is going to cost a bit. I had mentally budgeted three thousand dollars, although it could probably be done for slightly less by renting a five-ton and driving over to get the trees yourself.

I hope this works out well for them. Nobody wants to see a small local firm run into problems with a project.

01. $ 9,071 - 35.6 cents/tree - Freya Logging
02. $13,799 - 54.2 cents/tree - Seneca
03. $14,557 - 57.2 cents/tree - Integrity
04. $17,373 - 68.3 cents/tree - Folklore
05. $25,105 - 98.6 cents/tree - Whanau Forestry

Post by **Scooter** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:09 pm

Here are the results for another contract for Planting in Mackenzie

Contract: PL19TGE003
Client: BCTS Mackenzie
# of Trees: 1,661,802
Season: 750K Spring and 912K Summer 2018
Contractor Rating System: Yes
Left on the Table: 3.1%

I've attached some of the relevant contract documents to the bottom of this post. Additional documentation and maps can be found using the Advanced Search on the BC Bid website. The numbers posted here are the bids before adjustments were made based on the Contractor Rating System.

01. $505,913 - 30.4 cents/tree - Spectrum
02. $521,557 - 31.4 cents/tree - Celtic
03. $527,134 - 31.7 cents/tree - Coast Range
04. $528,734 - 31.8 cents/tree - Dynamic
05. $606,821 - 36.5 cents/tree - Folklore
06. $648,541 - 39.0 cents/tree - Seneca

Post by **Scooter** » Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:16 pm

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

Contract: PL19TAS100
Client: BCTS Burns Lake
# of Trees: 1,990,800
Season: Spring 2018
Contractor Rating System: Yes
Left on the Table: 31.0%

If there's one thing that a company can count on during viewing season, it's that if they make a big mistake on a bid and are embarrassed because the rest of industry sees it and laughs, it doesn't matter because another contractor will come along and distract all the attention a week later.

This is a lot of money to leave on the table. 31.0% doesn't seem like much compared to the Aspen job in Vanderhoof posted up above this, but in this case, it represents over $160,000 in real dollars, rather than just $4k on the Aspen job. The conventional wisdom is that small local companies are able to pay better prices than large companies. That's going to be tough for the winner in this case.

01. $517,863 - 26.0 cents/tree - Hybrid 17
02. $678,656 - 34.1 cents/tree - Dynamic
03. $754,021 - 37.9 cents/tree - Folklore
04. $774,130 - 38.9 cents/tree - Seneca
05. $812,263 - 40.8 cents/tree - Next Generation

Post by **Scooter** » Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:35 am

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Merritt

Contract: PL19DCS101
Client: MOF (because I think it's silly to acknowledge an agency like MOFLNROPR that has extra intials every year)
# of Trees: 706,420
Season: Spring 2018 (Option to Renew)
Contractor Rating: N/A (BCTS only)
Left on the Table: 12.2%

I've attached some of the relevant contract documents to the bottom of this post. Additional documents and maps can be found by using the Advanced Search option on BC Bid.

01. $386,179 - 54.7 cents/tree - Zanzibar
02. $433,318 - 61.3 cents/tree - Leader
03. $434,216 - 61.5 cents/tree - A&G
04. $498,379 - 70.5 cents/tree - Seneca
05. $912,143 - $1.29 per tree - Apex

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:15 pm

Here a contract for work Planting in Port McNeil

Contract: PL18THD219
Client: BCTS Port McNeil
# of Trees: 476,865
Season: Spring 2018
Contractor Rating System: Non
Left on the Table: 21.6%

This is a large amount to leave on the table for a contract with a moderate dollar value. This contract includes some northern Vancouver Island work, but also four other islands up and down the coast. It also includes heli, boat, barge, and some of the work may not be plantable until at least late May. Lots of ferts, as is usual for the coast, and also some 30-gram ferts for the 21,500 of the 512A alder.

As can be seen from the attached Unverified Bid Results graphic, Brinkman's advantage in the contractor rating system actually puts them in third place for being awarded the bid, even though their bid was only fourth lowest.

01. $326,236 - 68.4 cents/tree - Integrity
02. $396,816 - 83.2 cents/tree - Evergreen
03. $404,366 - 83.8 cents/tree - Guillory-Emery
04. $419,553 - 88.0 cents/tree - Brinkman
05. $450,557 - 94.5 cents/tree - Rainforest
06. $597,874 - $1.254 per tree - Fieldstone

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:26 pm

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

Contract: PL19TLE001
Client: BCTS Williams Lake
# of Trees: 1,324,918
Season: Spring 2018
Contractor Rating System: Yes
Left on the Table: 4.2%

A smaller contract, which unfortunately is spread out into three very separated clusters of blocks. Lots of driving here. I know this contract well. Some of the blocks being planted are blocks that my crews planted in the past, but then got hit with this year's wildfires.

I think I should probably start putting these with the numbers in order of actual bid-ranking based on Contractor Rating System placement, rather than just list the bids from 1 to X. So for example, on the following list, you can see that the dollar amounts are the UNADJUSTED bids that were submitted by the companies. If any particular company wins the bid, that is the amount they submitted, and that is the amount they get paid for the work. However, my placement numbers on the left (on this particular contract) go 1, 3, 2, 4, 5, 6. This shows that Dynamic is actually 2nd in line to receive the bid after Celtic, rather than the 3rd place that seems to be the case looking at the bids. This is because Dynamic must have a good enough rating to have jumped ahead of Seneca in the Contractor Rating System. This CRS ranking information can be seen in the way that the Unverified Bid Results graphic is displayed, although there isn't any such graphic posted for this particular contract since it was an invitation-only tender. Although I wrote up the previous post (Port McNeil) in the traditional format that I've always used, you can see from their Unverified Bid Results graphic how these rankings are published. In that job, Brinkman is actually in 3rd place ahead of Guillory-Emery & Associates.

01. $486,252 - 36.7 cents/tree - Celtic
03. $506,783 - 38.3 cents/tree - Seneca
02. $509,857 - 38.5 cents/tree - Dynamic
04. $528,112 - 39.9 cents/tree - Next Generation Reforestation
05. $549,664 - 41.5 cents/tree - Folklore
06. $728,030 - 54.9 cents/tree - Blue Collar

right_arm · Post by **right_arm** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 6:31 am

03. $404,366 - 83.8 cents/tree - Guillory-Emery

I've never heard of this contractor before. Is it a new player or Bivy with a new partner/name? Anybody know?

Cyper · Post by **Cyper** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:49 am

Rumour has it that Roland has taken on a new partner and may be in the process of phasing himself out. The other name is that of his wife I'm told.

leftcoast · Post by **leftcoast** » Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:39 am

Wow, Integrity might want to re-think accepting this job. He can probably do it for wages...but there's no profit in that bid. It would be refreshing to see one of these super low outside the pack bid's get passed up. Hasn't happened that I can see yet this year. Taking work for the sake of working isn't a great business model. This is also not the job to be cutting corners for the sake of worker safety, the consequences of screwing up here are probably the most serious of any job in BC. Read Boats Barges and Helicopters

On the bright side, seems the majority of companies have smartened up and there is some great bidding going on this year, lots of close pack's and generally less low-balling. Established contractors for the most part are bidding well, while outliers are still making major blunders.

Post by **Scooter** » Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:38 am

Here are the results for a job for Planting in Smithers

Contract: PL19TAS102
Client: BCTS Smithers
# of Trees: 1,101,480
Season: Spring 2018
Contractor Rating System: No
Left on the Table: 10.4%

I looked at this job, and it didn't look nice. Messy blocks, and some bad soupy access. The bids on this were in a pretty tight group except for NGR, so I guess that others felt the same. Although this is listed as being part of the Burns Lake District (same as the Houston and Burns Lake jobs, TAS101 and TAS100), you'll note that bids are significantly higher on this one. Great scenery in the Smithers area though!

This bid lists Integrity. This is presumably the Integrity based out of McBride (Seth's company) which has bid on a few Interior jobs. Not to be confused with Integrity on the coast (Jake's company) which has the low bid on the Port McNeil job listed previously.

01. $393,887 - 35.8 cents/tree - Next Generation Reforestation
02. $435,011 - 39.5 cents/tree - Dynamic
03. $537,413 - 39.7 cents/tree - Folklore
04. $447,794 - 40.7 cents/tree - Seneca
05. $475,021 - 43.1 cents/tree - Integrity

Cyper · Post by **Cyper** » Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:59 am

Bizarre how the two Intergritys tolerate each other using the same name here in B.C. No doubt one could force the other to stop using that name. I don't know if it's a matter of who registered the name first? I see that the northern version is actually called Seth MacDonald (dba) Integrity Contracting, whereas the one based on Vancouver Island is called Integrity Industrial Services. If I was in that position I wouldn't want my name confused with another company that might have less Integrity. I guess it's not a problem until it is.

Post by **Scooter** » Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:37 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Browse Cone Removal on East Thurlow Island

Contract: FH18TCB042
Client: BCTS Campbell River
# of Cones: Approximately 15,000
Contractor Rating System: N/A

This contract is for the removal of "approximately 15,000" cones on approximately 117 Ha, spread out over five separate blocks.

I found it interesting to note that one of the questions in the Q&A came from someone who was asking the density of the cones. The Q&A document also provided the sizes of the five blocks, and the tender offer form had the estimated number of cones on each block, so hopefully the approximate densities can be calculated that way. Of course, it would be nice to have access to the original planting data from a few years ago, because the contractor that originally planted those blocks probably gave BCTS an exact number of cones per block.

01. $ 45,000 - Iverson Forest Management
02. $ 52,500 - Strategic Natural Resource Consultants
03. $ 63,450 - Integrity Industrial Services (Jake)
04. $ 66,900 - Evergreen
05. $ 97,850 - Leader
06. $ 98,100 - JMC Forest Maintenance
07. $127,000 - Impact

Rainforest also had a bid which was rejected for some reason.

Post by **Scooter** » Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:44 pm

Here are the results for another contract for Planting in Quesnel

Contract: PL19TLH004
Client: BCTS Quesnel
# of Trees: 2,182,024
Season: Spring/Summer 2018
Contractor Rating System: Yes
Left on the Table: 4.7%

The breakdown on this contract is for 1,663,680 spring trees and 518,344 summer trees.
This contract also includes 94,720 ferts.

You can see from the "ranking" numbers that the Contractor Rating System adjusted placements in a few spots. Blue Collar jumped a spot ahead of Rhino. Celtic jumped a spot ahead of Seneca. Folklore jumped a spot ahead of NGR. Of course, this doesn't matter at all, as Coast Range was able to do the best job of sharpening those pencils and finding ways to cut corners.

01. $585,292 - 26.8 cents/tree - Coast Range
03. $592,758 - 27.2 cents/tree - Rhino
02. $612,903 - 28.1 cents/tree - Blue Collar
05. $678,693 - 31.1 cents/tree - Seneca
04. $679,214 - 31.1 cents/tree - Celtic
06. $689,881 - 31.6 cents/tree - Dewan
08. $768,384 - 35.2 cents/tree - Next Generation
07. $768,919 - 35.2 cents/tree - Folklore

Post by **Scooter** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:58 pm

Here is yet another job for Planting in Quesnel

Contract: PL19TLH005
Client: BCTS Quesnel
# of Trees: 2,567,538
Season: Spring/Summer 2018
Contractor Rating System: Yes
Left on the Table: 11.2%

This one is interesting. Most of this is spring work (2,129,690 trees) with 437,848 summer. A lot of this contract is burned ground from this year's wildfires.

If I remember correctly (and it's been a few weeks since I looked at this one), there is a cluster of blocks down to the southwest of Nasko which is comprised of three large blocks. The odd thing about them is that, due to stock availability, these three blocks have to be planted at different times, ie. early spring, late spring, and summer. They can't be done back-to-back. And between them, I think they accounted for approximately 550,000 trees (someone can correct me if I'm off by more than a few thousand).

When I was out looking at these blocks, I ran into the foresters. The access wasn't great, and remember that this was in the fall when the roads are relatively dry. There was no way to get trucks to the blocks. Depending on how brave one felt, you'd have to park approximately 2-4 kilometers away. The foresters ended up sending out a notice that trees would have to be flown into these blocks. I checked with them to see if this was a suggestion or a mandatory, because I figured it might be cheaper to use alternative forms of access such as some haglunds. However, they said that helicopters would be mandatory, which makes sense because it's much better for stockhandling, and levels the playing field.

Since this info about the helicopters came out fairly late, it's likely that a few of the companies had already submitted bids. You can see on the bid sheet that three companies submitted upwards revisions ... this is possibly because they changed their bids to reflect the costs of helicopter access. The companies that didn't change their bids didn't necessarily forget to think about the helicopter access; they probably just didn't put their bids together until after that requirement was already known.

I'm about to start a bartending shift, so I don't have time to go into this in more detail, but if I get a chance this weekend I might sketch out some rough costs to show what the helicopter access will probably cost.

This contract is also a good one to demonstrate the form that is used for the public tender opening. You can see how BCTS blocks out the "Adjusted (for CRS) Bid Prices," so nobody knows what each individual contractor's current rating is. There are still ways to find that out, but that's information that is better left private in the eyes of BCTS.

There is still one more contract to be opened in Quesnel. I think that one comes out at the end of this week. I believe there's also a contract in 100 Mile House that hasn't been opened yet. After that, I can't think of any more contracts to be awarded for next year, at least not in the Interior.

01. $721,460 - 28.1 cents/tree - Rhino
02. $802,218 - 31.2 cents/tree - Seneca
03. $833,138 - 32.4 cents/tree - Next Generation
04. $863,046 - 33.6 cents/tree - Celtic
05. $892,781 - 34.8 cents/tree - Blue Collar
06. $919,703 - 35.8 cents/tree - Folklore

Post by **Scooter** » Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:14 pm

Here are the results for the final contract for Planting in Quesnel

Contract: PL19TLH006
Client: BCTS Quesnel
# of Trees: 1,889,348
Season: Spring 2018
Contractor Rating System: Yes
Left on the Table: 2.7%

This is the last of the four BCTS Quesnel contracts, in the Batnuni area for the most part. Note that Folklore also bid on the project but was disqualified.

01. $493,853 - 26.1 cents/tree - Next Generation Reforestation
02. $507,299 - 26.9 cents/tree - Blue Collar
03. $526,653 - 27.9 cents/tree - Seneca
04. $562,347 - 29.8 cents/tree - Celtic
05. $595,440 - 31.5 cents/tree - Dewan

Mike · Post by **Mike** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:31 am

"Note that Folklore also bid on the project but was disqualified."

Why?

Also, are therer fewer companies bidding on jobs this year? I seem to remember back when we made a spreadsheet in a hotel room, there were like, 8-12 bidders on each job. This year it seems more like 4-8?

Post by **Scooter** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:43 am

'Cause I'm, too sexy for the block.
Too sexy for the block.
Yes Scooter really rocks.

I'm a planter, you know that I am,
When I do, a u-turn at the woodline.
I'm a planter, you know that I can,
And the trees, that I plant, are just ... so fine.

(Or probably because something was left out of the paperwork in the mandatories).

Cyper · Post by **Cyper** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:41 pm

Mike wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:31 am "Note that Folklore also bid on the project but was disqualified."

Why?

Also, are therer fewer companies bidding on jobs this year? I seem to remember back when we made a spreadsheet in a hotel room, there were like, 8-12 bidders on each job. This year it seems more like 4-8?

Here are the average number of bidders per government contract over the last 7 years:

Interior Coast
2012 6.8 5.9
2013 6.7 5.1
2014 7.3 5.9
2015 7.5 4.0
2016 6.2 4.0
2017 5.9 4.2
2018 5.9 ?? - too ealry to tell for the coast 2018

Post by **Scooter** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:00 am

Someone gave me a few numbers for comparison purposes, in terms of total volumes:

2018 Interior: 52.486 million trees. This is an increase of 279k from last year. So essentially the same. This is BCTS work. This doesn't take multi-year contracts into account.

However, in terms of MOF and FFT work, there has been a very significant drop. There was 12.03m in 2017, and there's only been 4.51m million tendered for 2018.

TripleS · Post by **TripleS** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:38 am

I would expect the MOF and FFT component to rise significantly next year as they begin planting some of the land burnt in the Summer.

Post by **Scooter** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:31 pm

Definitely. Although some of that is already happening. A few of the BCTS contracts were predominantly fresh burns.

TripleS · Post by **TripleS** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:58 pm

^^^ Is that for BCTS blocks that were logged and then burnt, so the trees had been sewn already or were they able to get a hold of some surplus trees? I imagine government put in a massive request for seedlings after the fires this Summer, but the reforestation efforts will likely take quite a few years given the size of the devastation.

Post by **Scooter** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:11 pm

I believe they were almost entirely blocks that had been planted within the past five or six years, then burned in this summer's fires. So I'm guessing that they took trees allocated to fresher blocks, and moved them to burned blocks, to try to get a head start on the backlog. That would give them a bit less of a disadvantage when it comes to passing free-to-grow surveys eventually. I'd imagine, though, that with so much ground burned, the government will have to make some exemptions to the free-to-grow requirements. There just isn't enough spare nursery capacity in western Canada to handle the amount of ground that burned, possibly not even if every nursery went full-tilt every year for the next decade.

Post by **Scooter** » Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:53 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Chilliwack

Contract: PL19TBB001
Client: BCTS Chilliwack
Season: Spring 2018
# of Trees: 510,000
Contractor Rating System: n/a
Left on the Table: 5.5%

The high prices on this contract are deceiving. These prices include a requirement by the contractor to buy the fertilizer packs, and also includes the application of brush mats and plantskyyd, as well as re-applying plantskyyd to existing trees. So the tree price is an indeterminable small portion of the overall bid price.

01. $357,449 - 70.1 cents/tree - Leader
02. $377,102 - 73.9 cents/tree - Zanzibar
03. $527,219 - $1.03 per tree - Brinkman

Post by **Scooter** » Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:49 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Haida Gwaii

Contract: PL19TBJ002
Client: BCTS Haida Gwaii
Season: Spring 2018
# of Trees: 183,744
Contractor Rating System: No
Left on the Table: 5.4%

The tree prices on this mean almost nothing with respect to the trees, simply because the bid also includes 125k cones and stakes that the contractor has to supply and install, 224ha of cone removal, and 43ha of brushing.

01. $ 747,655 - Osprey
02. $ 788,035 - Whauwau Forest
03. $ 874,088 - Stephan Contracting
04. $1,224,641 - Fieldstone

Post by **Scooter** » Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:56 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Planting on the Sunshine Coast

Contract: PL18TBP003
Client: BCTS Sunshine Coast
Season: Spring 2018
# of Trees: 349,100
Contractor Rating System: Yes
Left on the Table: 5.0%

This contract has a lot of 512's. However, the job is quite easy from a logistical point of view. These results have been amended since the initial posting, after BCTS discovered a math error in one of the bids.

01. $142,827 - 40.9 cents/tree - Integrity (Jake)
02. $149,999 - 43.0 cents/tree - Brinkman
03. $155,931 - 44.7 cents/tree - Evergreen
04. $159,807 - 45.8 cents/tree - Impact
05. $168,677 - 48.3 cents/tree - Osprey
06. $178,478 - 51.1 cents/tree - Leader

Post by **Scooter** » Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:44 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in 100 Mile House

Contract: PL19TEG001
Client: BCTS 100 Mile House
Season: Spring 2018
# of Trees: 3,445,558
Contractor Rating System: No
Left on the Table: 8.8%

This is the last major government contract (that I'm aware of) to be awarded for Central Interior work. There are still a couple of tiny jobs in Terrace left to be opened on February 1st, and probably a number of large contracts in the Prophet/Peace River area.

This one was a typical 100 Mile House contract. Lots of rocks, lots of long drives.

01. $1,039,515 - 30.2 cents/tree - Blue Collar
02. $1,130,512 - 32.8 cents/tree - Seneca
03. $1,233,290 - 35.8 cents/tree - Celtic
04. $1,298,000 - 37.7 cents/tree - NGR
05. $1,300,071 - 37.7 cents/tree - Leader
06. $1,313,914 - 38.1 cents/tree - Folklore

mwainwright · Post by **mwainwright** » Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:33 pm

I believe one of those terrace jobs opened today

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Jan 26, 2018 6:11 pm

You're right, Mike, thanks.

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Terrace

Contract: PL19TII106
Client: BCTS Terrace
# of Trees: 101,812
Season: Spring 2018
Contractor Rating System: No
Left on the Table: 30.7%

This contract includes purple straws for all the trees, and 13.46 Ha of Brushing work.

01. $119,990 - $1.18 per tree - Whanau Forestry
02. $156,839 - $1.54 per tree - Little Trees

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Jan 26, 2018 6:28 pm

Here are the results of a contract for Planting in Vernon

Contract: PL19DOS001
Client: MOF Vernon
Season: Spring 2018
# of Trees: 156,400
Contractor Rating System: Not applicable
Left on the Table: Unknown

I don't have full details on this, as it was a private opening. Again, I'm not sure why the government, which should be publicly accountable for tax dollars, would choose to go through this process in secrecy. There may have been other bidders on this contract besides All-Stars, or they may have been the only bidder.

01. $75,655 - 48.4 cents/tree - All-Stars Silviculture

Cyper · Post by **Cyper** » Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:43 pm

The Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations, Rural Development Contacts and Secret Tender Openings doesn't seem to feel accountable to public scrutiny. They consistently hide planting tender results from the tax paying public. MOFLNRORDC is not to be confused with BCTS who are quite open about their tender results. The MOFL.... refuses even when asked directly, to disclose who bid what. The only way to get the results is to make a Freedom of Information request, which of course is time consuming and can in some cases cost money. Why these bureaucrats think they can keep these results secret is troubling.

TripleS · Post by **TripleS** » Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:49 pm

Certainly seems shady, although I'm not convinced the open process gives the taxpayer the best bang for their buck either. By simply going with the lowest bid, they are focusing on year to year budgets and not the best value long term. I'm not saying All-Stars are a bunch of treeplanting All-Stars and give their clients the best long term value, though, and this kind of bid definitely deserves a closer look.

Post by **Scooter** » Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:26 am

It would be possible to structure contracts so the lowest bid is not necessarily the one that is accepted. And the results could then still be released publicly, even though lowest bid is not the guaranteed winner.

I would argue that it is possible for a system that doesn't focus solely on price to still be a better long-term value for taxpayers. In fact, we saw at least one contract last year, possibly more, where "the lowest bid will not necessarily be accepted" was written into the contract.

Some time ago, there used to be the possibility for companies to submit bids that were based upon a number of criteria. Low price could make up something like 50% of the point system for deciding who gets the contract, but the other 50% could be based upon things such as resources to be committed to the job, safety plans, experience of staff on the job, etc. That system was even in place for government bids for a while, and is still in common use today among many private licensees.

Perhaps there are too many foresters who are simply trying to meet short term budgeting and performance goals, and failing to really be able to fight for what's best for the long-term health of BC's forests. I don't know enough about the public sector challenges to be able to understand that possible dichotomy.

Tnalp · Post by **Tnalp** » Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:37 am

AB Beetle contracts had 40% Experience/History/Capacity and a 60% Price Bid breakdown.
This is not in itself bad but it does give leeway to the selection committee to use that 40% to make decisions that are not necessarily black and white.

Post by **Scooter** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:39 am

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Terrace

Contract: PL19TII102
Client: BCTS Terrace
# of Trees: 143,742
Season: Spring 2018
Contractor Rating System: No
Left on the Table: 20.9%

High prices on this one. Remote access, with lots of logistical issues to consider.

This may be the last tendered contract for the upcoming spring/summer 2018 season, unless any contracts are awarded in the Dawson / Peace River / Prophet River region.

01. $158,954 - $1.11 per tree - Brinkman
02. $192,128 - $1.34 per tree - Stephan Contracting
03. $247,876 - $1.72 per tree - Nootka
04. $284,569 - $1.98 per tree - Little Trees

Post by **Scooter** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:43 am

Summary of "changes" to previous results

Most of the contracts included here have gone to the lowest bidders, as listed.

However, so far, I'm aware of three contracts where the lowest bidder is not doing the work. Here they are:

1. BCTS Port McNeill (PL18THD219) - Lowest bidder was Integrity (Jake). That contract was passed, and went up to Evergreen, the next bidder in line. I'm not sure whether this was based on initiative from Integrity or from BCTS. Perhaps they discussed the bids and mutually agreed that the bid was not appropriate for completing the job in a safe and satisfactory manner.

2. The very tiny job for MOF Vanderhoof (PL19DSN020) went past Freya Logging and was awarded to Seneca. Perhaps Freya missed the note about being responsible for shipping trees from Edmonton, or perhaps the MOF decided that Freya didn't have a qualified workforce.

3. BCTS Arrow South (PL19TFG001) - Evergreen was $57 under Celtic on this bid, but after the Contractor Rating System ratings were applied, Celtic came out with the lowest adjusted rating and was awarded the job.

If anyone knows of any other changes, post them here (or email me at jonathan.scooter.clark@gmail.com and I'll post on your behalf).

Post by **Scooter** » Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:20 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Quesnel

Contract: PL19DQU001
Client: MOF Quesnel
# of Trees:
Season: Spring 2018
Contractor Rating System: N/A
Left on the Table: 14.1%

This contract was a "private opening." I'm not exactly sure what that means, since it is government work, which I thought was all supposed to be published publicly (for any work in BC over $25,000). I know which company won the contract, and I know the dollar amounts that were bid by various companies, but I do not know the names of the companies associated with these other bids.

It is possible for someone who is a resident of BC to get this information by submitting a Freedom of Information request. Here is the link:

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/gove ... nformation

I would encourage someone to submit such a request, and share the rest of the details about the bid. The forester herself gave me the link to the FOI request form, so I can only assume that she would be more than happy to provide the missing information to someone who submits an FOI request.

01. $377,789 - Coast Range
02. $430,948 - ??
03. $447,472 - ??
04. $491,023 - ??
05. $504,095 - ??
06. $505,876 - ??
07. $507,222 - ??

Post by **Scooter** » Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:47 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Vernon

Contract: PL19DOS001
Client: MOF Vernon
# of Trees: 156,400
Season: Spring 2018
Contractor Rating System: N/A
Left on the Table: 9.3%

This was from the fall, and the posting of the results was overlooked earlier. Seneca was disqualified due to a paperwork issue, but had a bid of $82,096, just slightly below Raven. However, since they were not an official bid on the sheet, I used the Raven number to calculate the amount left on the table by the winning bidder (which only had a very small affect on the percentage).

01. $75,655 - 48.4 cents/tree - All-Stars
02. $82,654 - 52.8 cents/tree - Raven Ventures
03. $93,840 - 60.0 cents/tree - Integrity Contracting

Post by **Scooter** » Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:35 am

Some stats:

(edited October 2018 due to a mislabeling of two lines that I just finally noticed)

Post by **Scooter** » Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:08 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Brushing & Cone Removal in Port Alberni

Contract: BR19TCD001
Client: BCTS Port Alberni
Season: 2018

This contract covers 71.3 Ha of brushing on 10 separate units, plus the removal of approximately 18,500 cones from four blocks.
I noticed in passing that the eAdvertisement says that BCTS will provide the zap straps. I'm not sure why they'd be providing ties for cone removal. And I'm planting on the coast right now, and I'm too tired tonight to dig any more deeply.

01. $ 80,239 - Brinkman
02. $ 88,849 - JC Forest Maintenance
03. $ 94,605 - Integrity (Jake)
04. $128,640 - 1025854 BC Ltd.
05. $167,910 - Impact

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:28 pm

From today's WFCA Rumour Mill Roundup newsletter:

Over the years it has sometimes been discussed among forestry contractors and consultants whether our government should reveal unit or component prices on tenders for forestry service contracts. The Western Forestry Contractors’ Association has taken a position opposed to revealing this kind of bidding information. In a recent letter to BCTS on behalf of its members, the WFCA argued that releasing unit or component prices bid on forestry service tenders would do harm to bidders by revealing proprietary business information to their competitors. The current practice is to release only the extended or total price of a bid allowing competitors to know where they stand in the market without knowing how other bidders arrived at their price. The WFCA has recommended maintaining the status quo practice of only releasing the extended price tendered when bids are opened.

Although I fully believe that overall tender prices on government contracts should be shared with the public, I agree with the above stance.

I find it interesting that this is a topic under discussion, considering that a very small number of government foresters do not release project bid results to the public (short of a Freedom Of Information request), despite the projects being paid for by the taxpaying public.

Tnalp · Post by **Tnalp** » Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:10 pm

Seems like they're referring to block/tree price etc and not overall avg tree price no?

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:33 pm

Correct.

Post by **Scooter** » Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:58 am

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Fort Nelson

Contract: PL19TEG001
Client: BCTS Fort Nelson
Season: Spring 2018
# of Trees: 18,044
Contractor Rating: No
Left on the Table: 31.3%

This may be the funniest tender of the season. Except for the people who have to plant this one. See the "Information for Bidders" attachment for full details. I've done a screenshot of a portion of that document, which is shown below. Note that the red comments are my own, simply reiterating key points that the forester included in the document. If you find the original tender documents on BC Bid by using the Advanced Search option, you can also see a series of photos of the blocks.

The contract itself is quite small, only eighteen thousand trees. The block are poor access, extremely green, there has been brushing, heavy competition, you name it. On a positive note, the blocks look relatively flat.

The "winning" bidder has to pay for shipping. The trees are in Medicine Hat, only 1600km away.

Conditions on this contract will be varying shades of horrible.

01. $45,538 - $2.52 per tree - Whanau Forestry
02. $66,285 - $3.67 per tree - Spectrum
03. $91,190 - $5.05 per tree - Dynamic

Post by **Scooter** » Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:09 am

It looks like Montane Forest Consultants will be the implementation checkers in 100 Dollar House, and Cariboo Forest Consultants will be the implementation checkers for the Quesnel contracts.

Based on the dollar amounts, resources may be spread a bit thin.

jdtesluk · Post by **jdtesluk** » Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:36 pm

100 Dollar House

Oh ouch

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:05 pm

I just received the following email from someone at Strategic Natural Resource Consultants Inc.

I have posted 2 tender packages for Fall 2018 coastal planting projects, funded by Forest Enhancement Society of BC.

There is a mandatory office meeting/conference call for interested bidders at 10 am Thursday June 28.

Both projects are large,in fire damaged standing dead stands, mostly outside the THLB, and have minimum daily production of 20,000 trees. The tender calls for proof of recent previous completion of large projects.

The tenders are on BC Bid, but, are in a link called "BC FES BID" within FLNRORD. Some contractors may not know to go into this link, so, I'm advertising widely.
Here is one link to both tenders. The link takes a person to the FES (forest enhancement society) of BC advertisement site.

https://fesims.outcome-plus.com/Adverti ... entLanding

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:05 am

I'm going to lock this topic now, to keep the annual results in chronological order. Any further commentary can continue in the 2019 Bid Results thread.