2020 Public Bid Results

[Scooter]

Chart 3 - Number of Public Trees Tendered

This number was also trending upward gradually, although there was a significant increase for the 2020 planting season due to catching up on wildfire restoration from the back-to-back record-breaking wildfire seasons of 2017 and 2018. It may turn out that 2020 will be the peak planting season if FES and other federal funding dries up for 2021 and beyond. Or it may turn out that volumes continue to grow slightly in 2021 and beyond if the liberals make good on their promise to plant 2 billion trees throughout Canada over the next decade.

[Scooter]

Chart 4 - Average Bid Prices

This slide shows two sets of data. The blue bars represent a weighted-average analysis of the low bid price price on each contract. I used ONLY low bids, so even if the contract went to the second-lowest bidder due to disqualifications, etc., it was the low bids that were considered. The orange bars represent a weighted-average analysis of all submitted bids for all projects.

[Scooter]

Chart 5 - Money Left on the Table (Percentages)

The average "cents per tree" left on the table increased significantly over the five-year trend, from 1.95 cents in 2016 to over 5 cents in 2020 (an increase of 250% from base level). However, a chart to show that increase would be misleading, because bid prices were also increasing at the same time. I therefore used percentages instead, to portray a more accurate increase to about 164% of base level.

[Scooter]

Chart 6 - Spring/Summer Pricing Variations (part 1 of 3)

The average bid price for 2020 trees was about 51.1 cents/tree (this is based upon low bids, not all bids). However, we saw evidence during the bidding season that people were pursuing summer trees more aggressively than spring trees. The large number of trees to be planted in 2020 with a deadline of late June is a significantly under-reported part of the story. Planters don't generally want a short season that ends in late June; they want to work into July. But there aren't a lot of summer trees available, in comparison with the demand for May/June work. It seems logical that companies would bid higher on spring work, and lower on summer work, as they try to give their workforces a longer season. The next two slides after Chart 6 will explore this further. Do you think we'll see empirical proof to match our theory? Will average spring prices be higher than overall average 2020 prices?

[Scooter]

Chart 7 - Spring/Summer Pricing Variations (part 2 of 3)

No surprise here. Spring tree prices were higher than one might initially have assumed by looking at the overall 2020 number. This is the result of a supply/demand imbalance where the amount of demand (number of trees needed to be planted) is expected to exceed the available labour supply. Companies are bidding high, in order to be able to pay above-average prices, so they will be able to attract sufficient workers to complete all projects.

[Scooter]

Chart 8 - Spring/Summer Pricing Variations (part 3 of 3)

The average for summer trees again reflects a supply/demand imbalance. Contractors will have hired a large number of workers to get through the spring bulge, but will then have to deal with an unhappy workforce that demands a longer season. Companies were bidding very aggressively on coveted summer trees, even though the ground in the summer is usually a lot worse as the blocks continue to green up with grass and brush. For planters, summer work is not as lucrative as spring trees.

[Scooter]

Chart 9 - Bid Price Increases Over Time

Some companies were especially eager to submit low bids at the start of the viewing season, as they tried to lock in some contracts early. Over a period of several weeks, it became increasingly clear that the number of trees to be planted was quite high, and contractors didn't need to chase work. They could submit higher bids, at the risk of not winning contracts, because there would almost certainly be more opportunities to secure other work later in the viewing season. The moral of this chart seems to suggest that it pays to exercise restraint at the start of the bidding season. Average contract bid pricing increased by about 10 percent for every three weeks that passed during the fall 2019 viewing season.

[Scooter]

Chart 10 - Takeaway Lessons

Here are some potential takeaway lessons for foresters and for planting contractors.

[Sunwatersoil]

What is the purpose of the Trees Decided column in your bid data? Why might those figures change from the bid trees?

[Scooter]

The top two columns of data refer to just the "winning" bids for each contract. Further down the spreadsheet, there is a larger group of data that incorporate all bids, including the higher bids that didn't win contracts.

For that first collection of data, I initially wanted to just summarize low bids. However, it became evident that it would also be useful to know how financial aspects were affected by the fact that sometimes, a low bidder passed on a contract, and it went up to a second-place or third-place bidder. We usually equate "low bid" with "winning bid," but in cases where the contract went up the line to a second-place or third-place bidder, that no longer holds true. This allows us to understand the very slight difference between "low bids" and "winning" bids.

[TripleS]

Thanks for taking the time to crunch the numbers Scooter. It was especially nice to see the difference between Spring and Summer trees. Cheers!

[Scooter]

Here are the results that I just got for a contract for Planting in Quesnel

Contract: PL21ZAN003
Client: MOF Quesnel
# of Trees: 1,551,532
Season: Spring 2020
Contractor Rating System: No
Option to Renew: No
Left on the Table: 12.0%

These are FCI funded contracts which will be administered by Zanzibar. The data for this job was not included in most of my earlier charts analyzing the full bid season, although they were included in the # of Trees and # of Contracts charts. And again, I don't have time to update all of the charts. After looking closely at the numbers, I suspect that the inclusion of these two contracts would have very little effect upon the average bid prices, contract sizing, and LOTT numbers.

I've only been able to attach a couple of supplier attachments to this post. For some reason, most of the original documents on BC Bid were either removed, or didn't exist there in the first place. This isn't something that I've ever seen before. Usually you can go back for many years and get a complete summary of all documentation associated with past contracts. The government typically prefers to keep everything archived, for obvious reasons associated with public transparency.

01. $ 635,363 - 41.0 cents/tree - Dewan
02. $ 711,362 - 45.8 cents/tree - Rhino
03. $ 911,489 - 58.7 cents/tree - Apex
04. $ 916,975 - 59.1 cents/tree - Coast Range
05. $ 917,074 - 59.1 cents/tree - Folklore
06. $ 931,489 - 60.0 cents/tree - Summit
07. $1,107,748 - 71.4 cents/tree - Seneca
08. $1,318,802 - 85.0 cents/tree - Celtic

[Scooter]

Here are the results for another contract for Planting in Quesnel

Contract: PL21ZAN004
Client: MOF Quesnel
# of Trees: 1,083,950
Season: Spring 2020
Contractor Rating System: No
Option to Renew: No
Left on the Table: 1.7%

Incidentally, both of these contracts moved up past Dewan, and will be planted by Rhino.

01. $ 490,048 - 45.2 cents/tree - Dewan
02. $ 498,247 - 46.0 cents/tree - Rhino
03. $ 662,974 - 61.2 cents/tree - Coast Range
04. $ 672,219 - 62.0 cents/tree - Apex
05. $ 676,996 - 62.5 cents/tree - Summit
06. $ 734,575 - 67.8 cents/tree - Folklore
07. $ 921,357 - 85.0 cents/tree - Celtic
08. $ 944,353 - 87.1 cents/tree - Seneca

[Cyper]

These two jobs look like good ones to avoid if the bids are an indication. Who knows what Dewan was planning or why they got disqualified on both jobs?
Rhino left a combined $364,854 (14 cents per tree) on the table which equates to 14% under the next lowest bidder.
Rhino appears to have misjudged the market on all three of their government bids as they left almost 10 cents on the table in Vanderhoof and let that job go to Celtic.
Here's hoping they'll benefit from all of Scooter's hard work in putting all of these numbers together and so bid more appropriately in the future.
Planters who watch the results posted here should have a better idea of which jobs to avoid.

[jdtesluk]

Do we only judge jobs based on what is left on the table? That seems like an incomplete picture, and is an easy hindsight call that ignores the actual bidding process. Lots of people are taking flyer bids and hoping they hit a home run like Apex did in Kamloops, but in many cases they are looking around the table and making their best guess. Yes, we should expect companies to learn and adjust based on bid sheets, but do we judge them on unknowns (hidden bids) or knowns (actual winning prices from other bids)?

How do we define "the market". It is a normative thing, based on what we think prices SHOULD be. Is it a speculative thing, based on what we think prices COULD be. Or is it a descriptive thing, based on what prices ARE.
I tend to think the market IS what prices actually are, and if we are going to judge a job, it should be based on comparison with apt markers....as in prices for similar jobs with similar conditions in the same area.
Just saying.

As for these specific jobs, I understand they are mostly burns, and all the DTA is already done. From talking to other contractors, I understand these prices to be significantly higher than what the licensees are paying in the same area. If you back over other 2020 bids from Quesnel (mostly BCTS), you will find Torrent picking up 3.3 mill at 47.7, Apex getting 3.8 mill at 48.8, Seneca getting 2.3 mill at 48.7......I won't count the two AKD wins on MOF jobs around 43.
I think those numbers make Rhino's bid look very much in the ballpark here. The season will speak for itself. However, my suspicion is that these jobs will be decent.

Full disclaimer.....The owner of Rhino once gave me a ride to the airport from downtown PG, because he was heading in that direction anyway. That in no way influenced the points I've made here

[Scooter]

a home run like Apex did in Kamloops

I know a bit about that job now. It might be one of the rockiest jobs in BC this year. It's a high price, but to be honest, I think I'd be much happier planting Rhino's Quesnel jobs at 46 cents than the Kamloops job at 70+

No, let me rephrase that. I KNOW that I'd be much happier. I also think the earnings potential would be better on the lower-priced Rhino jobs. But it's hard to say. When the bid price is in the 70's, you can get through some fairly challenging ground. I'm looking forward to hearing the post-season feedback from my friends at Apex.

[jdtesluk]

Those dibbles will make short work the rock

[Cyper]

Wow Jordan I had no idea getting a ride from Rhino could engender such gratitude. Or might it have something to do with Rhino's recent joining of the WFCA, an organization that you are very fond of? I can see that you wouldn't want to see them alienated by criticism of their consistent low bidding. You're really stretching it to avoid the obvious discrepancy between what Rhino bid and what everyone else except Dewan bid. Of course not all bids leaving large amounts of money on the table are bad bids. There are numerous factors affecting what individual companies might bid. In Rhino's case, these contracts were tendered relatively early in the bidding season when most companies were bidding more competitively, as Scooters analysis showed. All of the companies that Rhino underbid by a whopping 30% were still actively pursuing work and went on to acquire more jobs as the bidding season progressed.
Chances are Rhino will pull this job off. The price on the face of it, is not that far below what average prices in that area have been going for in the open market. Does it make sense to assume that all of the other bidders arbitrarily bid 30% higher for no good reason? I think not.
Perhaps Rhino has some special way of making these kind of bids work?

[jdtesluk]

Cyper - I just showed the numbers. Undeniable clear numbers of the most similar available jobs.
Here's some more numbers for you, seeing that you seem to have an aversion to such things.

38 and 44 - those were winning bids for similar Quesnel jobs in 2019 (I excluded bid prices where the job was actually passed up)
26,34,27,28 - those were winning bids for similar Quesnel jobs in 2018

Seems that the 47-cent bid is truly part of the upward trend. Those are just numbers.

Edit= you know, if you look at other interior jobs, you gain see this price is right in the ball park. Would you prefer Blue Collar in Fort St James at 45 and 49. I see 52 in Williams Lake, 51 in 100 Mile, 53 and 52 and 52 and 52 and 55 in 100 mile House, 46 and 57 in Prince George, 47 in Burns Lake. Again, when you look at the numbers for ACTUAL jobs (not pretend jobs from bids that did not win), you see this bid is not an outlier in terms of actual money for the job.

As I have shown (again with just plain old numbers) I have not needed to stretch anything. There is indeed a significant gap between Rhino and the next closest bid. But your reasoning is (as I plainly pointed out already) based entirely on after-the-fact criticism of what were unknown numbers. Moreover, Scooter himself (who actually viewed the job) acknowledges that this will likely be a good money maker. I also see earlier margins at over 50% (small brushing job), and 23% (significant planting job). You were silent on those. I will not speculate at your motivation for speaking up here, but again I find it curious that you choose to ignore the undeniable fact that this bid is part of the overall upwards trend in bidding.

I apologize I only have these numbers to offer, and not some wild speculations about what goes through people's minds as they bid. I also don't have a fake name that I can hide behind as I offer other insinuations.

For the record, the majority of my audit clients are not members of the WFCA. Rhino is also not my client. Apart from audits, I am paid through the BC Forest Safety Council for work on health and safety related projects, administrated through a committee of industry members both from within and from outside the WFCA. I have on two occasions spoken at WFCA meetings (outside the main conference where I speak exclusively on OHS issues). Those included summer meetings where both members and non-members gathered to discuss the industry market. At both events I told the industry that significant increases in tree prices were needed to properly reward workers - to pay them what they deserve. I also suggested that contractors pursue further improvements in safety and worker treatment. I based this feedback on input from speaking directly with hundreds of workers and observing dozens of contracts. They welcomed this information as they know I only deal in facts.

I hope that is transparent enough for you. I like being up front and out in the open. If you don't like the argument, by all means, feel free to continue to attack the person.

[jdtesluk]

I couldn't help it. I really do believe in numbers. And I decided to give Cyper a fair shake on his criticism linking Rhino's membership in the WFCA to low bidding. I mean, it is not fair to just dismiss someone's point without due consideration. To be fair, Cyper isn't exactly targeting the WFCA in general - just tying the two together in a loose manner. However, skepticism of the organization comes up a lot, and it deserves a look.

So let's look at that. Seriously. What do the numbers say? Do WFCA members bid lower and leave more on the table? I took a few minutes to review this 2020 thread and the provided data for 54 bids. I did this quickly and at the end of a long day, so if there is a glitch or two in the math, that is a product of a hazy mind.

I simply tracked the margin (left on the table LOTT) for the winning bid, and grouped it according to WFCA and non-WFCA members (scribbled this on paper). I took the liberty of including Rhino as a member, even though they did not join until a few weeks ago and after much of the bidding was over. I also went with the lowest bid, and did not necessarily track down who actually took the job. I also included ALL bids in here, planting and brushing.
I took the liberty of excluding the two outliers, which were bids by non-members (brushing I think) where they left 169% and 58% on the table --- uggghhh. Just being fair. Wouldn't want to stack the deck in favor of the WFCA now.

So, if LOTT is what is most important, what does the data tell us?

32 bids from Non-WFCA members averaged at 11.87 LOTT
20 bids from WFCA members averaged at 11.34 LOTT

Now, that actually suggests that WFCA members leave less on the table (smaller LOTT) than non-members...at least in this year's action. However, to be fair, a very quick and easy statistical analysis (t-test for means) reveals that the difference is not statistically significant and cannot reliably attributed to the dependent variable (membership).

How about we look at the 5 largest LOTTs in each group. Members - 29.4, 21.4, 20.0. 21.4, 15.7 Non-Members 29.6, 33.2, 44.2, 29.4, 23.8 (remember I excluded two real humdingers here)
Well that sure looks funny. Definitely seems to be a pattern of huge gaffs more frequently among non-members.
For the tightest bids (smallest LOTT) there was one less than 1% in each group.

However, again that is just the 54 bids in this thread. I honestly don't think that membership means squat in terms of general bidding behavior. If anything, it helps parties avoid major blunders where they are totally and completely out of touch with the market. I would also add, that there are many companies that participate in WFCA activities, attend their conferences, and interact with the members, and who are not actually members. One would expect that they are probably more likely to behave more like members than non-members....they just don't chip money into the organization. In fact, members actually have less money to work with given that they contribute to the industry in a direct economic way through membership fees that comprise a set % of payroll.

Edit#2 - Apologies, I am bored today, and am looking after a sick dog, so these numbers are giving me some distraction time.
I looked at the 2018 thread and did the same analysis, this time only on planting contacts. Really the brushing contracts are dominated by non-WFCA parties, and there was only one brushing job won by a WFCA members. Typically LOTT on those jobs is much bigger, typicaly in the 15% to 50% range.
Anyway, I looked at 47 bids identified by Scooter with calculated LOTTS. I excluded those where there was only one bidder.
26 bids from non-WFCA members averaged 11.25 LOTT
21 bids from WFCA members averaged 10.22 LOTT
Again, due to the small 'n' this falls below statistical significance. However, it again shows that during the last two years of rising prices, that WFCA members have actually had smaller percentages left on the table on average.

It would be really interesting to go over the complete data from not only this year, but the past few years and get into this a bit deeper - particulalry in a comparison of downwards and upwards trending market years. The organization may actually exert a different effect during different periods of market activity - it is hard to say. I think Scooter has done a pretty awesome job of that already, but we could get into some really interesting analytics with this stuff and go all Billy Beane on it.

The point of this rant is not to justify or defend Rhino's bid ---- I think the planters' earnings will have to do that. However, if people want to criticize bids, it would be nice if it was coming from a place of objectivity and not speculation. Just saying.

[Scooter]

Interesting stuff, thanks for looking at the numbers with this perspective.

[Cyper]

I'm only somewhat surprised at Jordan's rants. A lot of this theorizing is subjective and not substantive. Many assumptions are being made and in this case by someone who is not in the front lines of the bidding process. While I appreciate that Jordan is a tremendous resource and a hugely positive influence in our industry, his academic field of expertise is not in running a tree planting business nor in bidding to get planting contracts. One can manipulate numbers in many ways. An old friend of mine used to say "figures don't lie, but liars figure". Now I have no problem with playing with numbers to attempt to prove a point, but to assume that one's own manipulations and assumptions are more relevant than someone else's because one has what one perceives as higher learning, is patently unscientific to say the least.

Jordan's quote "I decided to give Cyper a fair shake on his criticism linking Rhino's membership in the WFCA to low bidding". I've reread my post and can't for the life of me see where I linked Rhino's low bidding to the WFCA. Facetiously and with tongue in cheek I kidded that Jordan might overlook Rhino's low bids so as not to alienate them from the WFCA. Misquoting someone to foster an argument has dubious merits.
Jordan's numbers showing that WFCA members don't leave quite as much on the bidding table are exactly what I would have expected. I also support the WFCA and all they are doing to help make our industry safer and more lucrative for all.

So please Jordan don't always assume that you are the authority and that your opinion is paramount. You have no idea who I am and what my background or involvement in the industry is. Unlike you I would not benefit from name brand exposure. I have seen all too often on these forums that certain elements of our industry are vilified, scorned and picked on. Picking on individuals opinions and getting personal about it is not the way to go. I apologize for my actions in that vein. Unfortunately many posters have been driven away from this forum by self righteous and aggressive posts asserting their opinions as if they were gospel.

[jdtesluk]

"To be fair, Cyper isn't exactly targeting the WFCA in general - just tying the two together in a loose manner." - I think I made that pretty clear. You decided to bring the association into the conversation, I evaluated it as an influence on bidding. I honestly think it is something that should be evaluated further, because if there is a group influence on bidding practices, I believe that the contractors can learn to be more successful in bidding by examining it. I did indeed seize on that point a bit fiercely, but did so when the discussion wandered away from the actual numbers and started bringing other variables into the discussion. I felt it deserved to be examined because many other parties (not necessarily Cyper) have pointed fingers at the association before, but nobody had really examined it with respect to bids. It was an opportunity to go down that road, and if I unfairly pinned that on what was really just a half-serious comment, I apologize for using you as a prop.

As for manipulation of numbers, you have rather loosely hinted at this, but again I think people should just be clear and not hint at things. If the numbers seem dubious, then point out how, or provide a better analysis. I have clearly pointed out the limits of the data, which covers only what is included in these two threads. And the point of the numbers was not to show "one's own manipulations and assumptions are more relevant than someone else's". I was simply offering numbers as opposed to opinion. That is actually about as close to "scientific" as anything in this discussion.

At no point have I assumed I am an authority. That is an unfounded assumption. Again, I think we should avoid suggesting motivations for other's actions or pretending we know what is inside their heads. I have presented my argument regarding the bid with as much supporting fact as possible, and made a very clear argument about the types of information we should use when evaluating bids. I simply see no favors to workers (the most important group IMHO) if we characterize jobs in a negative light without accurate information on the earning opportunity they actually entail. I am fully open to changing my stance on the issue of the bid in question, if a more convincing argument is offered that is backed by good data. I have no confidence in my own opinion on this matter, only confidence in the best source of information to support an evaluation.

The tone of your post is somewhat reconciliatory, but it is also coupled with this wandering analysis of my motives and beliefs, and a sudden decision to focus on my academic background, with some vague comments about "what one perceives as higher learning". I am not rejecting your intent, and I acknowledge the effort made and accept what may be an attempt to peace it out.However, I prefer to not welcome continued speculation about my motivations or supposed self-valuation.
I may not be an active bidder, but I speak to contractors constantly about the bidding process and monitor the industry as close as possible. I cannot question any of your expertise as you choose to remain anonymous, and that is fine. I really do understand that some parties are probably better off and only able to contribute without being outed. That is actually a really good thing, because we have had foresters, managers, and planters provide all sorts of valuable information that they could not have done if they had to risk their reputation or identity. Even if I knew for certain who you are (and I could hazard a guess) I would not state that, nor would I choose to focus on your background, make assumptions regarding your motivations, or make statements about what you think of yourself. I hope that is fair. Yes, argumentative, but fair I hope. We can come closer together and still argue.

Finally, I think you make an interesting point about people driven away from this forum. That is very interesting. Indeed, most people would note that industry discussion is now more centrally focused in social media than say 10 years ago. Personally, I think there are a lot more personal attacks and bullying on KKRF and other forums than here - that is strictly opinion but I base it on the various sexist, violent, and purely insulting comments I see and receive on Facebook, compared to what has really just been gentle ribbing here. I think that Replant is one of the spots where people continue to keep it on point, and that is why it continues to have such value.

Cyper, your apology seems to be to all parties, but to be clear I do not feel entitled to any share of that apology, nor do I think it would be warranted. In fact, if people are going to put themselves out there, they better be prepared to take some ribbing, some shots (yours were really just subtle, and honestly not entirely pointless), and some scrutiny. In fact, I am taking close heed to what you have said, and will try to consider it as I continue my work in the industry. Honestly, I think I can be a bit of a windbag, a tiny bit pompous, and I need to listen more, make more space for others (if just to add to diversity of opinion and elevation of other voices), and be less confrontational. In fact, I should thank you for pushing me here, because it steered the conversation to some new ideas.

[bush]

I like Cyper’s posts.

[YellowCedar]

“In fact, if people are going to put themselves out there, they better be prepared to take some ribbing, some shots (yours were really just subtle, and honestly not entirely pointless), and some scrutiny.“

Some might say that this could be considered workplace bullying, humiliation and harassment. Humiliation is the most subtle of all types of harassment.

Indeed, one would hope that he/she could put him/herself “out there” in a professional and safe environment where his/her comments and opinions are respected by peers and not turned against him/her by someone who is trying to prove a “bigger” point.

Maybe I should’ve posted my opinion in the H&S forum?

[Scooter]

I started to write up a long post in the Health and Safety forum to talk about harassment, so it wouldn't hijack the Public Bids topic. If that (thread hijacking) happens, I can move the posts (starting with this one) into the Health & Safety section.

However, I got tired of writing it and just erased it. It's midnight here on the east coast, and I have to be in the bush tomorrow. However, since I spent a good part of today auditing the "Workplace Violence and Harassment" online courses from three provinces, I figured that I may as well let people know that I'm starting to develop a resource page on the main website to talk about harassment. Here's the link:

www.replant.ca/harassment

That's still a work in progress, and I'm hoping to continue progress on that with assistance from the NSDP.

And now, back to discussion about bids ...

[Scooter]

Here's a late result for bidding. This is for Planting in Castlegar

Contract: PL21DSE001
Client: MOF Castlegar
# of Tree: 52,227
Opened: March 12th, 2020
Season: Spring 2020, perhaps?
Left on the Table: 21%

This is a small job. Despite that, it is very spread out, and will have multiple start ups. In addition, the checker on this contract is rumoured to be quite tough to please, with his own nuanced quality assessment system.

01. $53,715 - $1.03 per tree - Beaton Arm Reforestation (?)
02. $64,931 - $1.24 per tree - Evergreen

[danger]

Sorry for the dumb question, but what does "Left on the table" mean?

[Scooter]

The amount by which the lowest bid could have increased and still be $1 lower than the second lowest bid. So in this case, Beaton Arm could have been $11,216 higher and still would have won the job because they would have been lower than Evergreen.

To find the percentage, we divide that dollar amount left on the table ($11,216) by the price of the winning bidder ($53,715) and see that it is about 21% of that price.

We use percentages because they are more useful than absolute dollar amounts. If you compare dollar amounts, a close bid on a large project (say a low bid of $4,300,000 and a 2nd place bid of $4,400,000, which leaves $100,000 on the table) would appear to be worse than a wide spread on a small project (say a low bid of $50,000 and a 2nd place bid of $100,000, which leaves $50,000 on the table). So percentage amounts tend to make different data points more comparable.

Of course, while that metric is pretty useful in a lot of cases, you have to take it with a grain of salt. There are dozens of other factors that should be assessed in determining whether a bid was a good or bad one, and in many cases, the public can never see a lot of those factors because the companies involved don't share certain information due to competitive reasons. Example, three companies bid $200,000 on a block because they assume that it is going to need a lot of expensive helicopter time, and their bids are basically for about $100,000 for the planting and $100,000 to cover the heli costs. But I have a roommate who works for a road layout crew for XXX mill and I know that they're going to be building a brand new road past that block before it gets planted, so I bid $140,000. Everyone looks at my bid at $140,000 and thinks it's a terrible low bid because all they see is three other bids at $200,000. But in reality, the planting component of my bid is much higher than what the other three had allocated. This was a hypothetical example, but it just goes to show what kind of things can happen in the background that the public doesn't know about when looking at bids. And incidentally, this hypothetical example is not that unlikely ... I've seen several situations that were a lot stranger than this one.

[danger]

Awesome, thanks for the explanation!

[Mike]

Damn. Industry is so wildly different now from 5-10 years ago. It's interesting to see things change so rapidly.

[Scooter]

Fall coastal work with heli.

Contract: FES Advertisement AD0000033