2011 Public Bid Results

[Coaster]

A thread devoted to following bid results for planting tenders for 2011. If you post results it's always good to show the number of trees so we can get an idea of what the price per tree is;

Here's the first one I've seen - BCTS Merrit/Lillooet #01 - 1,384,096 trees


1 - Coast Range - $355,435 - 25.7 cents
2 - AKD Reforest - $359,917 - 26.0
3 - Dynamic - $385,422 - 27.8
4 - Evergreen - $425,996 - 30.7
5 - Brinkman - $426,889 - 30.8
6 - Seneca - $427,025 - 30.8
7 - Leader - $448,872 - 32.4
8 - Apex - $470,231 - 34.0
9 - Folklore - $479,065 - 34.6
10 - A&G - $485,825 - 35.1
11 - Celtic - $525,399
12 - Next Gen - $584,434

[Mike]

I was told in a previous thread on the same subject that finding the # of trees was generally impossible.

[Scooter]

It's not usually in the bid results, but if you can contact one of the contractors who bid on the project, you should be able to find out the info pretty easily.

[Coaster]

To get the number of trees on any given BCTS contract bid:

In most cases BCTS contract tender advertizements are archived and available on-line for years afterwards. It can however be a little difficult to navigate your way through the BC Bid site to find what you're looking for. Assuming you can get to the welcome page on their site which is here; http://www.bcbid.gov.bc.ca/open.dll/welcome

Click on "Browse Using the Advanced Search" option - You can search by Organization, date range, contract number etc. It's not the most user friendly system but it does work if you're patient. The advertizement and all of the attached documents should be available. In some cases BCTS stores their documents somewhere else and they aren't available after the bids open. I know Campbell River does this. I'd be covering my tracks too if I were them. See the Khaira thread for more interesting revelations regarding that fiasco.

[mcD]

hah, having worked a lot in the Merritt /lilooet area, and knowing where I can say FOR SURE, that coast range is going to get roasted on that one. at those prices a good planter will have to work pretty hard for $180. good luck.

[Coaster]

MOF - Vernon - 545,940 trees

1 - AllStars - $129817 - 23.7 cents
2 - BD Silv - $149241 - 27.3
3 - Seneca - $149369 - 27.3
4 - Timberline - $153239 - 28.1
5 - Tiger - $1578343 - 28.9
6 - Evergreen - $160184 - 29.3
7 - Brinkman - $166458 - 30.5
8 - Gorilla - $169751 - 31.1
9 - Corsair - $176006 - 32.2
10 - AKD - $176022 - 32.2
11 - Coast Range - $195137 - 35.7
12 - Dewan - $208156 - 38.1
13 - Next Gen - $218376 - 40.0

[aaron]

who is this allstars company? ive never heard of them

[whitepickup]

Clearwater Contract, 880k trees, including 132k fertilisers


BD SILVICULTURE INC $249,395.34 (28.2)
BRINKMAN & ASSOC $290,386.32 (32.9)
FOLKLORE CONTRACTING $281,108.40 (31.8)
DYNAMIC REFORESTATION $283,078.85 (32.1)
RHINO REFORESTATION SERVICES $303,567.43 (34.4)
APEX REFORESTATION $315,020.05 (35.7)
COAST RANGE CONTRACTING $315,976.64 (35.8)
CELTIC REFORESTATION $329,582.22 (37.3)
AKD REFORESTATION $335,176.18 (38.0)
LEADER SILVICULTURE LTD $336,189.86 (38.1)
SENECA ENTERPRISES $336,632.83 (38.1)
AKEHURST & GILTRAP $339,696.80 (38.5)
NEXT GENERATION REFORESTATION $403,218.00 (45.7)
ZANZIBAR HOLDINGS LTD $404,097.552 (45.8)

[whitepickup]

BCTS Merritt 831,000trees


Coast Range Contracting Ltd. $214,755.98 ($0.258)
Apex Reforestation Ltd $226,837.34 ($0.273)
AKD Reforestation Ltd $234,057.94 ($0.282)
Dynamic Reforestation $236,423.93 ($0.285)
Brinkman & Associates $239,453.01 ($0.288)
Evergreen Forest Services Ltd. $261,853.90 ($0.315)
Seneca Enterprises $270,746.58 ($0.326)
Akehurst and Giltrap Reforestation $275,322.39 ($0.331)
Leader Silviculture Ltd $305,713.81 ($0.368)
Folklore Contracting Ltd $310,029.32 ($0.373)
Next Generation Reforestation Ltd $348,980.52 ($0.420)

[Scooter]

Does anyone know who BD Silviculture is? I think they're from Manitoba, but that's about all I know.

[Mike]

Manitoba company, they worked in the Burns Lake area last year, I think we ran into them once or twice. I can't remember the exact initials (I thought it was BJ, but in hindsight, probably BD) but there aren't that many manitoba companies.

[Coaster]

BD Silviculture are apparently from Manitoba but working hard at being in B.C. I've seen them take work in the Kootenays including BCTS Kootenay Lake from which they escaped with their lives in 2009 - barely. They also took a small job in Powell River spring 2010. Their bids always seem to be too low but they keep on keepin' on. I've seen the name Jason Metz of Winnipeg associated with this company. BD Silviculture is SAFE certified as a small company 'SEBASE' which means that they can not do contracts requiring more than 20 workers. I'd be surpised if the contract they're low on requires less than 20 people to complete. Khaira was frudulently certified as SEBASE. It is quite a lot cheaper to operate under this category.

[jdtesluk]

This year the BC Forest Safety Council (BCFSC) will be launching a more intensive effort to identify and deal with companies that are misrepresenting the size of their operation, or failing to comply with the requirements of SAFE companies certification. I make this comment only because people have mentioned the topic of certification, and I have no knowledge of the companies that people are scrutinizing. Before anyone goes out and suggests a company is misrepresenting themselves, they should absolutely have some accurate knowledge of the company and the contract it is doing. First hand knowledge is best, such as actually working for the company or seeing them on the job. A 900,000 tree contract could feasibly be done by a company of 20 people, even if only 17 are planters. 53,000 trees each might mean about 1325 per planter per day over 40 days. I would very much hesitate to hint at a company size issue unless the numbers start to look clearly out of whack. Keep in mind, that if there are too many spurious or unfounded complaints/reports, it only makes the legitimate and well-informed reports harder to follow up on.

Prior to this fall, the BCFSC did not have a formal and legally sound process in place to strip a company of its certification. Obviously they cannot just go forward and take a certification away without good cause or a good process (including fair avenues of appeal) or they would run afoul of the principles of administratice justice and find themselves in court. However, the process for removing certification has been formalized and put into policy, and has been carried out on a company mentioned previously. Soooo, now the BCFSC has the tool to deal with frauds, and more importantly has the desire to do so.

The BCFSC conducts "verification" audits on companies to ensure they are what they say the are, and doing what they say they are doing. This means that SEBASE companies (under 20 people) will periodically be visited to ensure they aren't fudging the numbers. In other words, auditors will be showing up at some of these company's worksites to check out their operations. In the big picture, misrepresentation happens very very rarely. However, the BCSFC is very much aware of the problems associated with companies that engage in such dishonesty, and it is in the best interests of maintaining their own legitimacy as well as protecting the safety of the workers that they will now be taking a more active approach to enforcement of their own requirements.

Anyways, this means that if you are aware of a company that is mispresenting its certification, you should by all means report it to the BCFSC or to an appropriate person who is connected with the right people in the agency. Keep in mind, that the BCFSC will not be taking a knee-jerk approach to enforcement and simply cannot follow up on the complaints of every unhappy party. However, serious complaints from reliable sources will help the council detect bad operators, and when their own rules and policies allow, they will follow up on complaints. Proof of this is the fact that Khaira no longer holds certification (and likely won't be getting it back anytime soon). Keep in mind, that an organization like the BCFSC MUST conform with certain procedures and legal guidelines, and they cannot be overly subjective in their investigative process or the selection of companies for verification. However, the more information they get, the better. So don't just complain online-- if you have good knowledge of a company that is misrepresenting itself, do honest contractors and other workers a favour and report them!

Thus, I strongly urge anyone that has a serious concern about a company to contact the BCFSC, or speak to their own boss. Your employer (if they are a good operator, which the majority of them are) likely has a strong interest in ensuring that other companies have to play by the rules too, and they may be in a good position to find out more about the situation and to contact people that can stimulate a response from the BCFSC or other regulatory agency.

[bush]

Soon there will be just one giant treeplanting contractor, Walmart. We plant more, for less. We always meet production and are safe certified!

[jdtesluk]

At least Hammie will still be guaranteed a job, greeting everyone as they come through the door.

Seriously though, when you look at the list of contractors in the province, there hasn't exactly been a defnitive shrinking trend. Some of the larger firms have shrunk, while some of the medium firms have expanded. However, the forestry companies would never want there to be too few contractors as that may inhibit the competition that they thrive on for keeping prices down. On the other hand, if your comments are meant to be less literal, and more figurative- as in all contractors moving closer together to a common business model- there may be some validity in that and it makes an interesting point to ponder.

[RPF]

Soon there will be just one giant treeplanting contractor, Walmart.

I hope not. Personally I don't shop at "Walmart" - never have, never will... (both literally and figuratively)

[bush]

more for less. this is the slogan and the main theme. higher production=lower quality. lower quality=lower prices. lower prices=higher production. working faster isn't safer. working smarter is.

[Screefhead]

Looks like Coast Range is making another run at monopolizing a lot of the planting . Hopefully it turns out as poorly for them as it did a few years back. Would Coast Range even be in business anymore if not for BCTS?

[Mr. Amazing]

At least Hammie will still be guaranteed a job, greeting everyone as they come through the door.

And you'll still be employed pushing paper and writing up cute reports for whoever? Sounds like a bright future!

[jdtesluk]

I should have known my wise-acreness would come back and bite me.

[Nate]

At least Hammie will still be guaranteed a job, greeting everyone as they come through the door.

Seriously though, when you look at the list of contractors in the province, there hasn't exactly been a defnitive shrinking trend. Some of the larger firms have shrunk, while some of the medium firms have expanded. However, the forestry companies would never want there to be too few contractors as that may inhibit the competition that they thrive on for keeping prices down. On the other hand, if your comments are meant to be less literal, and more figurative- as in all contractors moving closer together to a common business model- there may be some validity in that and it makes an interesting point to ponder.

Without regulation, it seems as if Western planting will simply turn into Ontario planting, with a few more high-end one-camp companies operating under the radar. Regulation might prevent this, but it seems inevitable to some extent. Quality standards will drop, the job will become more mechanistic, the average tenure of planters will drop significantly, the rookie-mills will dominate the market, and so on. I think increased regulation will help, however, at least in terms of slowing silviculture's decline.

I believe this largely owes to a shift in the planting culture that's happened over the past little while, and what technology has done in terms of expanding access to available contractors on the parts of mills, much more so than the recent economic down turn, but I haven't been around long enough for that to qualify as an "educated" opinion.

[jdtesluk]

Without regulation, it seems as if Western planting will simply turn into Ontario planting, with a few more high-end one-camp companies operating under the radar. Regulation might prevent this, but it seems inevitable to some extent. Quality standards will drop, the job will become more mechanistic, the average tenure of planters will drop significantly, the rookie-mills will dominate the market, and so on. I think increased regulation will help, however, at least in terms of slowing silviculture's decline.

I believe this largely owes to a shift in the planting culture that's happened over the past little while, and what technology has done in terms of expanding access to available contractors on the parts of mills, much more so than the recent economic down turn, but I haven't been around long enough for that to qualify as an "educated" opinion.

Great post Nate. There certainly seem to be various forces pushing the industry in such a direction in the past few years. The quality issue does seem to be emerging, with some checkers pretty much calling leaners and open holes only, while letting everything else go. Such an approach helps speed production, but negatively impacts the quality of the forest that grows there. Changes in the tenure system could alter such an approach to reforestation, but figuring out what direction that might go is purely speculative. For now, I would agree that quality expectations have dropped to shocking levels in SOME places. In others however, I hear planters complaining that the quality expectations have gone too high!

As for the domination of the rookie mills and decreasing planter age, I'll be keen to find out how such trends play out in the survey (that may be done). With the decrease in work volume in the past few years, I have actually seen a decrease in the hiring of rookies. Entire COHORTS may fall out of the industry, but the rookies of yesterday are the vets of tomorrow, and I have yet to see sufficient anectodal evidence to suggest that the rookie mills are dominating. In fact (and this point has been discussed to death), there are numerous indications that quality vet-heavy companies have some operational advantages in the current market conditions (ie, lower overhead and training costs). I've been hearing the exact same fear of "rookie-mill domination" since the late 80s when Roots was still in the game. I would suggest that labour market conditions on a wider basis are almost as influential as silviculture market conditions in determining worker retention in the industry. I think this is a really important point though, and I'm itching to get some good data on it.

Great point about the role of technology! I hadn't really thought of that before, and it is probably hugely influential. I also think your point about the change in planting culture is hugely important. Planters themselves are far more money-motivated today than 10-15 years ago (perhaps they have to be to survive), and they are certainly far more productive. Market pressure is not necessarily sufficient to explain why planters work as har as they do. The point of worker culture that you mentioned hints that there are factors other than the tree-price that influence the way in which people work and compete against each other in the workplace. (for shits ang giggles, check out Part3 Chap5 "Labour Process as a Game" in "Manufacturing Consent" by MIchael Burawoy- I swear he was talking about planting and not a factory floor).

In terms of regulation, I think the few bad operators are one enforcement visit away from the abyss. There has simply been a negligible level of enforcement in the past, and there are strong indications that is about to change. We'll really have to wait and see if A) talk equals action and enforcement of regulations does improve and B) if more vigorous enforcement amounts to any type of market correction by any operators that may be trying to trim their margins by cutting corners on wages etc.. Another potential regulatory influence is that the minimal wage could very well go up. Of course our last labour minister defended BC having the lowest minimal wage by saying "Well, BC has the highest average wage"- yeah right as if that means jack-squat to the people at the bottom. Regardless, there is substantial political pressure to increase minimal wage. If Liberals don't re-up in the next election, it's almost a certainty. Even if they do, inflation is pressuring it upwards anyways. Even an increase to $9 would affect low-bidding companies with intensive rookie-dependence (assuming adequate enforcement or worker greivances).

There are a lot of cards at play here and a lot of "ifs". I tend to think that conditions seldom turn out as calamitous as people expect, and the incremental rate of change and unpredicatable nature of the global market and local political regime make it difficult to paint either an entirely rosy or pessimistic picture. Instead I suggest that in even ten years from now, silviculture will be far more similar to how it is today than is will be different. The industry is already touching bottom in a few places, and it doesn't take many companies going under or getting hammered for non-compliance to keep things from tipping over completely.

I would suggest that a big part of the "Walmart" feel (athough I insist there must be an apter metaphor somewhere) is the change in the culture of the job and the intensive formalization of administration of an industry that for decades was organized with Write-in-the-rains and word-of-mouth. Those are still important tools, but the formal rationalization of the job at every level has certainly affected the way the job is done, and the experience that people have while doing it - this is perhaps part of the cultural shift of which you speak. THere may well be some positive outcomes to the processes silviculture undergoes as it modernizes- but there are likely pains as well. How these balance out likely depends on your position in the industry and your perspective or attachment to how things used to be.

[kootenaywrx]

These prices are low, Whats the point! Iam happy my bags are broken and worn out cause theres no way iam planting for low ballers that are going to be bankrupt halfway through there short season.

have fun working for nothing!

[Coaster]

More recent results:

BCTS - 100 Mile House - 1,271,844 trees

1 - Dynamic - $452,669 - 35.6 cents
2 - Folklore - $485,491 - 38.2
3 - Seneca - $485,922 - 38.2
4 - Fieldstone - $499,671 - 39.3
5 - Next Gen - $521,659 - 41.0
6 - Brinkman - $550,795 - 43.3
7 - Apex - $593,813 - 46.7

BCTS - Kootenay Lake - 1,063,700 trees

1 - Evergreen - $366,389 - 34.4 cents
2 - Brinkman - $392,080 - 36.8
3 - A&G - $401,194 - 37.7
4 - Fieldstone - $428,932 - 40.3

BCTS - Boundary/Grand Forks - 483,562 trees

1 - BD Silviculture - $176,048 - 36.4 cents
2 - Evergreen - $176,912 - 36.6
3 - A&G - $183,648 - 38.0
4 - Brinkman - $189,944 - 39.3
5 - Greenpeaks - $208,424 - 43.1
6 - Columbia Extreme - $256,452 - 53.0

[dreamofcream]

Clearwater Contract, 880k trees, including 132k fertilisers





BD SILVICULTURE INC $249,395.34 (28.2)
BRINKMAN & ASSOC $290,386.32 (32.9)
FOLKLORE CONTRACTING $281,108.40 (31.8)
DYNAMIC REFORESTATION $283,078.85 (32.1)
RHINO REFORESTATION SERVICES $303,567.43 (34.4)
APEX REFORESTATION $315,020.05 (35.7)
COAST RANGE CONTRACTING $315,976.64 (35.8)
CELTIC REFORESTATION $329,582.22 (37.3)
AKD REFORESTATION $335,176.18 (38.0)
LEADER SILVICULTURE LTD $336,189.86 (38.1)
SENECA ENTERPRISES $336,632.83 (38.1)
AKEHURST & GILTRAP $339,696.80 (38.5)
NEXT GENERATION REFORESTATION $403,218.00 (45.7)
ZANZIBAR HOLDINGS LTD $404,097.552 (45.8)

I believe this is the same contract that leader had in the past and it's truly dissapointing to see how low some of these prices are, This is very steep, coastal type cedar forests. Bummer for whoever ends up working this job, especially given that it used to be one of the exceptional jobs around. Interesting to see if BD gets awarded the contract...This really is a long way from flat, swampy, Manitoba planting

[whitepickup]

[/quote]

I believe this is the same contract that leader had in the past and it's truly dissapointing to see how low some of these prices are, This is very steep, coastal type cedar forests. Bummer for whoever ends up working this job, especially given that it used to be one of the exceptional jobs around. Interesting to see if BD gets awarded the contract...This really is a long way from flat, swampy, Manitoba planting[/quote]


In all fairness, next spring's contract is on easier ground. This is reflected on overall lower bid prices. The low bidder is however, well, low...

[Scooter]

The fact that we're next on the list scares me a little bit.

[Coaster]

As BCTS tenders begin to wind down for 2011 those without much work may start to panic, as evidenced by Brinkman's bid below in the Kootenays. If not for Next Gen, Brinkman would have left a cool $100,00 on the table between these two jobs. I guess they figure shitty work is better than no work. Gotta feed the machine...

BCTS - Prince George - 2,047,010 trees

1 -Next Gen. - $518,179 - 25.3 cents
2 -Brinkman - $548,818 - 26.8
3 -Dynamic - $603,132 - 29.5
4 -Seneca - $613,490 - 30.0
5 -Apex - $619.259 - 30.3
6 -Folklore - $675,384 - 33.0
7 -Spectrum - $722,279 - 35.2
8 -Celtic - $802,494 - 39.2


BCTS - Arrow/Castlegar - 1,117,223

1 -Brinkman - $403,746 - 35.0
2 -Greenpeaks - $449,335 - 39.0
3 -Evergreen - $483,212 - 42.1
4 -Zanzibar - $494,161 - 43.1
5 -A&G - $498,139 - 43.4
6 -Timberline - $543,650 - 47.5
7 -Fieldstone - $577,573 - 50.5

[Scooter]

Those prices by NGR & Brinkman on the PG job just do not make any sense. I think if either one of them take the job, they're going to really hurt Dynamic, which I don't think has much work. Or maybe Dynamic has a lot of direct award work. Anyway, bids that low don't really make sense in a year like this when the amount of work is slowly starting to rebound.

[Screefhead]

Once again, I'll ask the question what percentage of the bid price is the tree price paid to the planter?
My guess is slightly less than 50% goes to planter. So those 25 cent bid = about 11-12c to the planter.

[Scooter]

Depends on the company. Those with high overhead will pay a significantly lower percentage than the small operations that basically have just an owner/operator.

Although I don't have much experience with this, because I don't participate in bidding and don't ask about the total bid prices, I'd guess that the range is from 35% to 55%, with the vast majority in the 40% to 50% range. 40% for companies with high overhead, 50% for those with low overhead.

If you took a company like Brinkman, my GUESS would be that they would pay close to 40%. So on a contract where the bid price was 25 cents, the planter price would be about 10.0 cents. If a smaller company like Leader did the same thing, maybe they'd end up paying 48%, which would translate to a planter price around 12.0 cents.

Please remember these are only semi-educated guesses on my part! If anyone else can chip in here, it would be appreciated.

Also, remember that the company also has to pay a considerable amount of overhead on top of that price which is directly related to the planter price. Example:

10.0 cents to planter.
Let's assume that the company pays a total of 20% for supervision, ie. 14% to the foreman, and 6% to the supervisor of the job. That raises the price to 12.0 cents.
Then, add on the employer's EI, CPP, and WCB contributions. Yes, the first two are taken off the employee's paycheque, but what most planters don't realize is that the company also has to contribute additional funds into each of these programs, above and beyond what the planter pays. For CPP, the employer and employee pay equal amounts, just under 5%. For EI, the employer pays MORE than the employee. Let's say around 2.4%. For WCB, the rate depends on the work history of the company, but let's say it's around 4%. Total is therefore an extra 11.4%, plus or minus. So the 12.0 cents that we had a minute ago is suddenly just under 13.4 cents per tree.

Now divide that 13.4 cents by the bid price of 25.0 and you see that total direct+indirect wage costs add up to more than 53% of the bid price, and that's for a company that appears to pay 40%. Do that with the one starting out at 48%, and the total direct+indirect wage costs add up to over 60% of the bid price.

Here's some more detailed info on current rates:

http://www.payworks.ca/Payroll-Legislation/CPPEI.asp


When you're down to less than 40% of the bid price to make everything work, and you have to pay for vehicles and fuel and repairs, and supply a camp, the profit margins start getting to be pretty thin.

[Scooter]

And this doesn't touch on the wage/salary costs of support staff, ie. managers and the payroll staff in the office and the shop mechanics, when they exist. This is when the balance between high&low over head companies goes the opposite way. Often (although not always) the companies with lower overhead have to have extremely competent field staff that can keep everything running. This isn't always the case. So a planter in a company with low overhead might experience more downtime due to equipment problems than a high overhead company that can just throw personnel or money at the problem and get things back to normal more quickly, ie. send out an extra spare quad or truck from the shop, instead of waiting to fix the broken one. So the planter in the company with slightly lower prices might also have slightly less downtime, which compensates somewhat. Of course, this is all dependent entirely on the company. I've seen companies where this phenomena is very true, and others where it doesn't really apply due to luck or superhero MacGyver-like abilities on the part of the personnel.

[Coaster]

Planter price as a percentage of the bid price varies depending on a few factors. As Scooter mentioned it may very well depend on the size of the company and the overhead involved. I think that times like we are now experienceing tend to level the playing field somewhat as the larger companies are likely to cut their overhead and profit margins just to get work, bringing them more into line with the margins smaller companies use. I'd suggest that Brinkman is at the point of cutting profits right out of the equation just to make sure they can pay overhead and the salaries of all of those people in their office - not to mention Dirk himself.

Typically 50% is a pretty good number to use, however this varies depending on whether a local, motel or even logging camp crew is involved. There are other factors such as access including ATVs, boats, barges, helicopters etc. These days you can add the fact that contractors sometimes have to do DTA, thaw requests, tree shipping and reefer storage. I agree with Scooter in that the bottom end usually doesn't drop below 40% to the planter. In most cases 55% would be tops unless you are a small operator with a crew that doesn't require much direct supervision. If there's a significant percentage of local planters and not much in the way of extras 55% is quite possible.

Again these are numbers influenced by the marketplace. I'd think that contractors are just maintaining these days and profit margins would be in the 5% range if that. Once the market recovers, which should be in 2012, contractors will be not only raising planter's prices (I hope), but also raising overhead and profit margins to let them refurbish their equipment and vehicles, which from what I've seen are not being upgraded at all these days.

Some of the bids we are seeing may help to thin the field for the recovery in 2012. Some of these low bids are going to cause contractors lots of grief. I hope that planters will have enough options to be able to walk away from the bad jobs and cause the contractors to pay the price for panic biddding. Only the strong survive in tough times like these. Let's hope that we don't prop up the weak contractors who think they can bid as low as they want just to keep their companies alive.

[McgeeMcgee]

I am a little confused the way bidding works. From what I understand from this thread lowest bidder takes all trees. But in many cases aren't there several companies working on the same contract? Does the contractor just have multiple bids or do they take say the lowest three bidders(just an example) and divide the tree's up between them?

[Scooter]

Working for the same company, yes. Working on the same contract, rarely.

If you look at a company like Canfor out of Prince George, they might split their work up among 8 companies. People all think they're working the same contract, but really it is a number of different contracts for the same company. Same with something like West Fraser in Hinton, which used to have four contractors working simultaneously in different corners of their Forest Management Area.

A place like Kamloops might have three or four simultaneous BCTS contracts going too. Some of them might be multi-year contracts, so you could have a case where Celtic is in the second year of a three year contract, Summit is in the first year of a four year contract, and NGR is in a one-year contract. All might have different foresters that are in charge of their own respective contracts, but all work out of the same office.

[mcD]

two things to add, Scooter, this is definatly not a rebound year in any way. there are less trees out there than ever and these bids are a product of that. Second Wow Brinkman! there was A LOT of really ugly ground on that kootenay lake job, and I don't mean steep and slashy, more like rocks and duff, real crap. another big winner this year seams to be evergreen. I don't have the numbers but they took an MOF job in Merritt this year for 12c less than it has gone at for the last three years! and it wasn't that good then... pretty serious about the 20 x 20 screef out there.

[Scooter]

this is definatly not a rebound year in any way.

Are you sure? I've talked to several company owners and the feeling I get is that this coming summer will have slightly more trees than last year. Not by a lot, of course. I don't think we're seeing it in government contracts, although the release from the WSCA website would seem to indicate a tiny bit of growth on the sowing requests. But among private licensees, it seems that many are planning for more aggressive planting programs than the last two years. I'm also hearing from friends in the forestry industry that there appear to be more summer positions for next summer than there have been in a couple years.

All of this is unsubstantiated, of course, and based on conversations with a pretty limited number of people. I don't think we'd really know for sure until the end of this winter. And a big turnaround in the economy (for the worse) over the coming months could certainly put some of those projects onto the back-burner again, if lumber & pulp prices take another big dive.

[mcD]

I guess I can't provide you with any hard facts, but all the numbers I have seen, both public and private indicate that this years numbers will be lower than last years. I have heard that sowwing requests are up, but that won't affect anything until the following year. as I said before it is also why the bid prices this year are even lower than last. supply and demand right?

[Scooter]

Yeah, who knows. I'm certainly not holding my breath about any big recovery yet.

[Evergreen]

another big winner this year seams to be evergreen. I don't have the numbers but they took an MOF job in Merritt this year for 12c less than it has gone at for the last three years! and it wasn't that good then... pretty serious about the 20 x 20 screef out there.

Thanks for the warning McD. Perhaps you know something I don't but when we viewed that job, it was 96% mounded or trenched. Last time I checked screefing mounds was out of fashion. I agree though that it is a very ceompetetive bid that may have to be subsidized. If Brinkman ever dropped that BCTS Arrow job (the one you referred to as Kootenay Lake) and Greenpeaks followed suit then we could pass on Merritt.

Regarding volumes of trees available for 2011. Sowing requests are definitely down and it will be a very low volume spring season. After the sowing request deadline, many companies ramped up their logging and now wish they had trees available for spring 2011, but they don't. They will attempt to grow trees for summer if the ground suits. That's where the WSCA is predicting an increase in volume. The ramped up summer volume will offset the very reduced spring to bring the overall volume up closer to 2010 - which was no banner year as we all know. The FFT program took up some of the slack in 2010 and that seems to have all but disappeared. What little there is will likely be taken over by BCTS which at this point doesn't even know what ministry it belongs to. The boss fled. He's probably in Hawaii having a few Mai Tais.

The increased logging volume of late will create lots more planting for 2012. Indications province wide are for increased volumes of planting. It will definitely be a rebound year and prices should head upwards significantly. If we all believe that, then it will become reality - and there's every reason to believe it.

[Mike]

Evergreen, having a contractor such as yourself on these forums is great. Thank you.

[Sebastian]

thanks, Evergreen!

[mcD]

correction, definatly the arrow lakes job I was refering to. I think Brinkman will have a really tough time on that one if they go for it. As for Merritt true screefing trenches is out of style. I guess we'll just have to see how it goes....

[Evergreen]

This is a very cyclical business. I've seen it rise and fall in repeated cycles since I got involved in the mid seventies. The art as a contractor is to anticipate the changes. You can't afford to fail a single contract or your status to bid can be severely limited. Yet you have to bid as close to the line as you can to have any consistency for your crew.

We can’t afford to walk into Merritt and pay too low a tree price so we’ll make sure it’s reasonable. Yes, it is a low bid and beating out some of the people we did makes me nervous. As you say McD we’ll see. I imagine that ground is going to look pretty sweet when we get there from the coast.

Brinkman will have to take their lumps on the Arrow job and make the tree price right. They can't afford to fail. If only planters new how much collective power they have. No contractor can afford a non completion. If the price isn't right voting with your feet works better than you'd imagine.

[Screefhead]

BCTS - Arrow/Castlegar - 1,117,223

1 -Brinkman - $403,746 - 35.0
2 -Greenpeaks - $449,335 - 39.0
3 -Evergreen - $483,212 - 42.1
4 -Zanzibar - $494,161 - 43.1
5 -A&G - $498,139 - 43.4
6 -Timberline - $543,650 - 47.5
7 -Fieldstone - $577,573 - 50.5

I'm pretty sure this is about the same contract that Brian Adams and then Timberline had the past three years. Is there anyone in the know that can confirm this - Evergreen, Coaster?

Prices then averaged about 18 - 20C although specs changed from duff plant to full screef. Blocks were wildly inconsistent ranging from cream to complete shitfests .

I cant see this being a good contract at present bids unless Brinkman is doing it to break even or at a loss.

[Coaster]

BCTS - Arrow

This contract was much smaller in 2010 when Timberline got it at about 38 cents. 322K in 2010 and 1,117K for 2011. You can see that they bid it at 47.5 cents for 2011. That alone ought to indicate that it's a much tougher job although you never know as perhaps Timberline may have their season filled up already. I'd assume that the ground is tougher as the 2011 job is spread all over the West Kootenay's from Edgewood to Salmo and up onto the Blueberry/Paulson pass. The 2011 work also requires the contractor to ship trees and provide reefers which wasn't required in 2010. There is a small amount of day-rate work and I've adjusted the resulting tree prices to account for that.

I've looked into this one quite a bit as it's in my back yard. There is some pretty decent ground here and there but being the West Kootenays you can count on some steep and gnarly too. With Brinkman underbidding Evergreen by $80,000 I wouldn't touch this one. Evergreen has been very aggressive lately (as you can see from the MOF Merritt bids that McD commented on) so if Brinkman is that much lower I'd be worried.

As to Brian Adam's having done this work that's true for 2008 & the fateful 2009 contract that so many people didn't get paid for. They however only did the southern portion of this contract. The north was done by Evergreen. The southern ground is definitely easier.

[mcD]

and a lot of the ground in the south this year was pretty tough

[mwainwright]

only one coastal job up so far? it'll be interesting to see what happens with the powell river and lower mainland jobs that will be no doubt be popping up soon.

[Coaster]

No doubt BCTS will be a little more careful with who they award coastal jobs to this next go round. You can be sure that Osprey will be hungry. BD Silviculture will be looking to build on what they did in 2010 and Coast Range is trying to reestablish themselves on the coast. None of that bodes well for BCTS prices.

[Coaster]

MOF - Kamloops - 471,560 trees - early April

1 - Dewan - $121,750 - 25.8 cents
2 - AKD - $129,838 - 27.5
3 - Coast Range - $133,390 - 28.3
4 - Evergreen - $139,164 - 29.5
5 - Seneca - $143,838 - 30.5
6 - Dynamic - $149,094 - 31.6
7 - A&G - $154,184 - 32.7
8 - Tiger - $161,471 - 34.2
9 - Next Gen - $171,508 - 36.4

BCTS - Babine - couldn't find the number of trees for this one

1 - Summit - $387,488
2 - Windfirm - $407,776 + 5.2% above low bid
3 - ELF - $429,858 + 10.9%
4 - Folklore - $444,727 + 14.8%
5 - Apex - $466,006
6 - Brinkman - $494,080

Forsite - FFT - Merritt & Lillooet

These contracts have significant access issues and require full DTA so bids should reflect this.

Forest Fire - 110,200 trees - FFT2011-PL001

Allstars Silviculture - $37,908.80 - 34.4 cents
AKD Reforestation - $40,468.80 - 36.7
Brinkman & Assoc - $41,882.00 - 38.0
Tiger Reforestation - $44,080.00 - 40.0
Rainforest Silviculture - $44,655.00 - 40.5
Evergreen Forest - $45,638.68 - 41.4
Akehurst & Giltrap - $47,314.80 - 42.9
Dewan Enterprises - $49,017.60 - 44.5
Zanzibar Holdings - $56,268.00 - 51.0
Coast Range - $65,433.60 - 59.4
Dynamic - $78,462.40 - 71.2

Forest Fire - 308,580 trees - FFT2011-PL002

Next Generation - $91,339.68 - 29.6 cents
Akehurst & Giltrap - $139,891.80 - 45.3
Evergreen Forest - $141,396.90 - 45.8
Tiger Reforestation - $151,204.20 - 49.0
Brinkman & Assoc - $157,615.68 - 51.1
Zanzibar Holdings - $159,918.60 - 51.8
Fieldstone Resources - $160,471.20 - 52.0
Dynamic Reforestation - $167,373.54 - 54.2
Rainforest Silviculture - $177,016.74 - 57.4
Dewan Enterprises - $243,778.20 - 79.0
AKD Reforestation - $293,151.00 - 95.0

Conventional Logging - 385,390 trees - FFT2011-PL003

Allstars Silviculture - $108,444.00 - 28.1 cents
Brinkman & Assoc - $126,651.61 - 32.9
Rainforest Silviculture - $128,083.30 - 33.2
Evergreen Forest - $134,783.00 - 35.0
Akehurst & Giltrap - $154,484.70 - 40.1
Leader Silviculture - $161,221.75 - 41.8
Dewan Enterprises - $161,863.80 - 42.0
Tiger Reforestation - $162,484.70 - 42.2
Dynamic - $182,005.17 - 47.2
AKD Reforestation - $196,754.00 - 51.0
Zanzibar Holdings - $212,836.90 - 55.2
Coast Range - $230,815.04 - 60.0