2015 Public Bid Results

Evergreen · Post by **Evergreen** » Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:35 am

BCTS Cascades - Merritt Area
PL16TEF003 - 1 year
520,117 trees - late May start

$167,451 - 32.2 - A&G
$176,840 - 34.0 - Next Generation
$177,880 - 34.2 - Torrent
$208,964 - 40.2 - Leader

Post by **Scooter** » Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:04 am

I've found that when using the Advanced Search, I don't get consistent results by typing in just the document number. Sometimes, it doesn't seem to find the contract. Yet if I do a search on organization and add BCTS to the search query, plus the document number, it comes up much more frequently. It seems to be a problem more in Chrome than in Firefox. I don't use IE very much.

Mind you, I often just search by BCTS, as you've pointed out, and go through a calendar date range of results.

steve · Post by **steve** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 11:27 pm

BCTS Mackenzie contract. ~90% summer trees, don't know how many.

1)
Apex Reforestation Ltd
$1,493,606.98

2)
Blue Collar Silviculture Ltd
$1,259,779.04

3)
Coast Range Contracting Ltd
$976,592.69

4)
Dynamic Reforestation Ltd.
$1,123,958.88
Revision calculated into amount now
5)
Celtic Reforestation Services Ltd
$1,051,181.76

6)
Corsair Field Services Ltd
$1,079,370.29

7)
Spectrum Resource Group Inc
$1,447,831.05

Burns Lake opened today as well.

Post by **Scooter** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:16 am

Thanks Steve. Here's a full breakdown based on your numbers, and I've attached some of the tender documents plus a screenshot of the Tender Results from BC Bid ...

Contract: PL16TGE004
Location: BCTS Mackenzie
Season: Spring/Summer 2015
# of Trees: 3,767,470

01. $0,976,593 - 25.9 - Coast Range
02. $1,051,172 - 27.9 - Celtic
03. $1,079,370 - 28.6 - Corsair
04. $1,123,958 - 29.8 - Dynamic
05. $1,259,779 - 33.4 - Blue Collar
06. $1,447,831 - 38.4 - Spectrum
07. $1,493,607 - 39.6 - Apex

By comparison, here are numbers from last year, from two different contracts. Remember that blocks, treatment, and planting conditions can change from year to year, so this doesn't provide an exact comparison.

Contract: PL15TGE001
Total Trees: 2,911,728

01. $ 695,050 - 23.9 cents - Spectrum
02. $ 829,810 - 28.5 cents - Coast Range
03. $ 839,201 - 28.8 cents - Celtic
04. $ 869,547 - 29.9 cents - Corsair
05. $ 878,955 - 30.2 cents - Dynamic
06. $ 921,098 - 31,6 cents - Blue Collar
07. $ 973,078 - 33.4 cents - Brinkman
08. $1,054,823 - 36.2 cents - Folklore
09. $1,290,102 - 44.3 cents - Apex
10. $1,370,320 - 47.1 cents - Seneca

Contract Number: PL15TGE002
Number of Trees: 3.069m

01. $825,460 - 26.9 - Spectrum
02. $871,839 - 28.4 - Brinkman
03. $912,130 - 29.7 - Folklore
04. $927,385 - 30.2 - Blue Collar
05. $954,722 - 31.1 - Celtic
06. $980,240 - 31.9 - Coast Range
07. $1,131,601 - 36.9 - Seneca
08. $1,273,296 - 41.5 - Apex

steve · Post by **steve** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 5:45 pm

BCTS Clearwater. Don't have details.

1)
SENECA ENTERPRISES LTD
$359,502.76

2)
CELTIC REFORESTATION SERVICES
$351,983.90

3)
NEXT GENERATION REFORESTATION
$365,452.84

4)
COAST RANGE CONTRACTING
$341,550.81

5)
ZANZIBAR HOLDING LTD
$377,915.50

6)
AKEHURST & GALVANI REFORESTATION
$356,228.20

7)
LEADER SILVICULTURE LTD
$379,373.24

8)
CORSAIR FIELD SERVICES
$322,735.80

9)
DYNAMIC REFORESTATION
$312,479.00

10)
EVERGREEN FOREST SERVICES
$297,739.27

Post by **Scooter** » Sat Nov 22, 2014 10:38 am

This one ought to be framed ....

Post by **Scooter** » Sat Nov 22, 2014 11:06 am

Here are the sorted numbers on Clearwater, along with some of the attached contract documents:

Contract: PL16TEE001
Location: BCTS Clearwater
# of Trees: 832,690

01. $297,739 - 35.7 - Evergreen
02. $312,479 - 37.5 - Dynamic
03. $322,735 - 38.8 - Corsair
04. $341,551 - 41.0 - Coast Range
05. $351,984 - 42.3 - Celtic
06. $356,228 - 42.8 - A&G
07. $359,503 - 43.2 - Seneca
08. $365,453 - 43.9 - NGR
09. $377,916 - 45.4 - Zanzibar
10. $379,373 - 45.6 - Leader

Evergreen · Post by **Evergreen** » Sat Nov 22, 2014 2:41 pm

BCTS Port McNeill
PL15THD115
778,200 spring trees all with T-Bag fertilizer

This contract is possibly the most complicated one I've ever seen. There are a few trees on Vancouver Island but all of the rest are spread all over the mid coast on various islands and up inlets. Access is terrible with lots of heli and quad required. All of the island and inlet work would be done with a crew living on a boat. Planting stock and heli fuel to be barged in.

I have never seen a spread of this size in the bids. BCTS really blew it when they decided to let out such a large and diverse program in one contract. They would have received much lower prices had they chopped it up in to parts with Vancouver Island seperate and smaller groupings in the islands and inlets. Obviously it scared off even the most proficient coastal contractors - Bivouac in particular who've done this job in the past.

$743,811 left on the table to the 2nd bidder!! Brinkman must be kicking themselves. If ever a contract should be retendered, this is it.

Bids are;

$ 913,959 - $1.17 per tree - Brinkman
$1,567,770 - $2.13 pre tree - Impact

Nate · Post by **Nate** » Sun Nov 23, 2014 12:51 am

Evergreen wrote:BCTS Port McNeill
PL15THD115
778,200 spring trees all with T-Bag fertilizer

This contract is possibly the most complicated one I've ever seen. There are a few trees on Vancouver Island but all of the rest are spread all over the mid coast on various islands and up inlets. Access is terrible with lots of heli and quad required. All of the island and inlet work would be done with a crew living on a boat. Planting stock and heli fuel to be barged in.

I have never seen a spread of this size in the bids. BCTS really blew it when they decided to let out such a large and diverse program in one contract. They would have received much lower prices had they chopped it up in to parts with Vancouver Island seperate and smaller groupings in the islands and inlets. Obviously it scared off even the most proficient coastal contractors - Bivouac in particular who've done this job in the past.

$743,811 left on the table to the 2nd bidder!! Brinkman must be kicking themselves. If ever a contract should be retendered, this is it.

Bids are;

$ 913,959 - $1.17 per tree - Brinkman
$1,567,770 - $2.13 pre tree - Impact

Yeah, they hired some "Corey" guy to do their bidding. Here's his previous bidding experience:

newforest · Post by **newforest** » Sun Nov 23, 2014 9:55 am

Evergreen wrote:They would have received much lower prices had they chopped it up in to parts

I see this with government agencies here. More contracts = more bid packages to publish = more contractors to co-ordinate with in the field = more contractors to pay = more work for those hard-working government employees.

Anyway, that is a jaw-dropping spread on a public bid of any type particularly on a % basis. And a lot money to invest in an area of land.

Tnalp · Post by **Tnalp** » Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:12 pm

What would be the purpose of re tendering this? I don't see it!
Brinkman has been around long enough to stand by this number, one would hope! Unless they drop it. Was there a sizeable bid deposit?

mwainwright · Post by **mwainwright** » Mon Nov 24, 2014 7:09 am

I've got no love for brinkman, but $1.17 is a good price... more than enough to make it work out there. hell, they could even afford to pay their planters a respectable price (hopefully they do). Impact's prices should not be taken as gospel here, you'd be hard-pressed to get that kind of money out of a private licensee.

RPF · Post by **RPF** » Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:30 am

Evergreen wrote:BCTS Port McNeill
PL15THD115
778,200 spring trees all with T-Bag fertilizer

This contract is possibly the most complicated one I've ever seen. There are a few trees on Vancouver Island but all of the rest are spread all over the mid coast on various islands and up inlets. Access is terrible with lots of heli and quad required. All of the island and inlet work would be done with a crew living on a boat. Planting stock and heli fuel to be barged in.

I have never seen a spread of this size in the bids. BCTS really blew it when they decided to let out such a large and diverse program in one contract. They would have received much lower prices had they chopped it up in to parts with Vancouver Island seperate and smaller groupings in the islands and inlets. Obviously it scared off even the most proficient coastal contractors - Bivouac in particular who've done this job in the past.

$743,811 left on the table to the 2nd bidder!! Brinkman must be kicking themselves. If ever a contract should be retendered, this is it.

Bids are;

$ 913,959 - $1.17 per tree - Brinkman
$1,567,770 - $2.13 pre tree - Impact

Has this bid been accepted?
I don't know the area or ground conditions, but even Brinkman's bid seems on the high side.

Post by **Scooter** » Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:46 am

Lots of heli, costs add up fast. That bid price includes access costs for the contractor.

Considering that Impact owns a barge and thus has an inside edge, and understands the logistics, I'd imagine that this could be a very tricky job from a logistical point of view.

Evergreen · Post by **Evergreen** » Mon Nov 24, 2014 4:29 pm

Tnalp wrote:What would be the purpose of re tendering this? I don't see it!
Brinkman has been around long enough to stand by this number, one would hope! Unless they drop it. Was there a sizeable bid deposit?

Fair comment. Retendering as is would probably only serve to get the bid price up. BCTS wouldn't be well served in that respect. Retendering with the contract broken in to smaller pieces might result in lower prices. There was a bid deposit of $15,000.

For anyone to comment on whether or not this is a good or a bad price without fully checking out the specs and the logistics is useless conjecture. Because a contract is a good bid at 35 cents in Prince George doesn't mean that $1.17 is enough where quads, boats, barges, landing craft and multiple helicopters (1 is not enough) are required. There are dozens of planting blocks, almost all with deactivated roads and no remaining docks to land at. Brinkman will definitely stand by their bid and get the work done. They've been there before. It's just a crying shame that so much money got left on the table.

I did not attend the mandatory office viewing meeting but I would love to know if Brinkman and Impact were the only ones who showed up? If they were, they are to be commended as they obviously did not collude one bit. You'd think there would have been a great temptation to call each other and delicately talk around what level of interest each had. Not that you'd want to trust anything that was said. It is always interesting to listen to competitors talk at viewings especially when there aren't many competitors.

We did a job last year for MOFL and they wouldn't tell us the bid results when we won the job. All they would say is that we were low. They said they were afraid we'd collude with the bidders above us if we knew who they were and what the prices were. They said they had experience in the past with contractors colluding. MOFL wouldn't even tell us the bid results after we signed the contract. I had to go through the freedom of information act process to get the prices. Now that is unfounded paranoia!

Tnalp · Post by **Tnalp** » Mon Nov 24, 2014 5:46 pm

Interesting reply. I appreciate your perspective.
Thanks

Post by **Scooter** » Thu Nov 27, 2014 12:04 am

Here are some Brushing results for Mackenzie ...

Contract: BR16TGE001
Location: BCTS Mackenzie

Post by **Scooter** » Tue Dec 02, 2014 1:56 pm

Contract: PL16TLH004
Location: BCTS Quesnel
Time Frame: Spring 2015, 1 year (actually, a very small portion, 75k, are summer trees)
Number of Trees: 3,451,192

01. $ 879,976 - 25.5 - Coast Range
02. $ 938,574 - 27.2 - Blue Collar
03. $ 961,863 - 27.9 - Celtic
04. $ 964,722 - 28.0 - Dynamic
05. $ 977,036 - 28.3 - NGR
06. $ 996,300 - 28.9 - Corsair
07. $1,308,510 - 37.9 - Seneca
08. $1,322,303 - 38.3 - Apex

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Dec 05, 2014 1:40 am

Contract: PL16TAS100
Location: BCTS Houston/Smithers
Season: Spring/Summer 2015+ possibly 2016/2017
# of trees: 2.23m

This one is approximately 629k of spring trees and 1.6m of summer trees. It is planned to probably be a three year contract, unless something changes drastically that means it isn't allowed to be renewed.

01. $531,434 - 23.8 - Windfirm
02. $559,493 - 25.1 - Dynamic
03. $607,591 - 27.2 - Hybrid 17
04. $697,098 - 31.3 - Coast Range
05. $698,462 - 31.3 - Blue Collar
06. $830,930 - 37.3 - Celtic
07. $840,258 - 37.7 - Apex

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Dec 05, 2014 1:54 am

Contract: PL16TAS101
Location: BCTS Burns Lake
Season: Spring/Summer 2015+ possibly 2016/2017
# of trees: approximately 2.35m

This one is approximately 1.35m of spring trees and 1.0m of summer trees. It is planned to probably be a three year contract, unless something changes drastically that means it isn't allowed to be renewed.

01. $584,399 - 24.9 - Dynamic
02. $669,815 - 28.5 - Hybrid 17
03. $692,025 - 29.4 - Celtic
04. $717,361 - 30.5 - Windfirm
05. $741,883 - 31.6 - Blue Collar
06. $835,500 - 35.6 - Coast Range
07. $871,032 - 37.1 - Apex
08. $902,712 - 38.4 - Torrent

For comparison purposes, here's the results from one of the 2013 contracts in that area. I couldn't find any of the numbers from the 2014 contract.

Hybrid-17 - $305,960 (28.0 cents per tree)
Folklore - $438,374 (40.2 cents per tree)
Apex - $450,820 (41.4 cents per tree)
Seneca - $461,998 (42.4 cents per tree)
Timberline - $499,456 (45.8 cents per tree)
NGR - $651,610 (59.8 cents per tree)

steve · Post by **steve** » Fri Dec 05, 2014 11:07 am

Scooter wrote:Contract: PL16TAS101
Location: BCTS Burns Lake
Season: Spring/Summer 2015+ possibly 2016/2017
# of trees: approximately 2.35m

This one is approximately 1.35m of spring trees and 1.0m of summer trees. It is planned to probably be a three year contract, unless something changes drastically that means it isn't allowed to be renewed.

01. $584,399 - 24.9 - Dynamic
02. $669,815 - 28.5 - Hybrid 17
03. $692,025 - 29.4 - Celtic
04. $717,361 - 30.5 - Windfirm
05. $741,883 - 31.6 - Blue Collar
06. $835,500 - 35.6 - Coast Range
07. $871,032 - 37.1 - Apex
08. $902,712 - 38.4 - Torrent

Ouch. This is a rocky one.

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Dec 05, 2014 11:37 am

Very rocky. That group of blocks on the south and east of the grouping below Francois Lake is ... well, there are no polite words.

steve · Post by **steve** » Fri Dec 05, 2014 11:55 am

I thought the 360,000 tree block northeast of Burns Lake was even worse

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:46 pm

I forgot about that one. I looked at all the stuff down south. My viewing partner had some unkind words about that big block.

Mike · Post by **Mike** » Fri Dec 05, 2014 1:07 pm

Dynamic is classic for not increasing price on extremely rocky blocks. I recall the first season I worked there saw tonnes of injuries as a result of people trying to make money despite the rock.

Post by **Scooter** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:15 am

Here are some brushing results from contract BR16TFG001 in Kootenay/Arrow South.

01. $055,635 - A&G
02. $059.868 - West Arm Silviculture
03. $061,642 - Raven Ventures
04. $064,176 - Hamelin Silviculture
05. $129,808 - Panorama Crew Services

I'll try to be more organized next year with posting brushing results, with some of the contract documents, number of hectares, etc. I know there are a lot of brushers on the message board too.

steve · Post by **steve** » Sat Dec 20, 2014 7:17 am

BC TIMBER SALES

POSTING OF UNVERIFIED BID RESPONSES FOR:

Document number: PL15TCC040
Title: Spring Tree Planting - Sunshine Coast Areas

Results published after closing time. Posted on Tuesday 16 Dec 2014 at 02:11 PM
Number of tenders received: 5

Print

The following entities provided responses:
1)
Osprey Silviculture Operations Ltd.
$315,166.95

2)
Leader Silviculture Ltd.
$276,675.40

3)
Fieldstone Resources Ltd.
$256,258.12

4)
Rainforest Silviculture Services Ltd.
$261,055.11

5)
Evergreen Forest Services Ltd.
$226,164.57

And one for Haida Gwaii

BC TIMBER SALES

POSTING OF UNVERIFIED BID RESPONSES FOR:

Document number: PL16TBJ001
Title: Tree Planting & Browse Barrier Installation and Removal

Results published after closing time. Posted on Friday 19 Dec 2014 at 09:09 AM
Number of tenders received: 3

Print

The following entities provided responses:
1)
Stephan Contracting
$385,281.12

2)
Osprey Silviculture Operations Ltd
$456,023.50

3)
Fieldstone Resources Ltd
$534,255.40

whitepickup · Post by **whitepickup** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:36 pm

Juvenille Spacing in the Chilliwack Forest District

Number of tenders received: 4

The following entities provided responses:
1) G.B.F. Technical Forest Services Ltd. $25,967.50
2) Nootka Reforestation Ltd. $70,200.00
3) Leader Silviculture Ltd. $52,877.00
4) Beaverfoot Resource Ltd. $41,880.40

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:08 pm

From today's WSCA Rumour Mill Roundup:

BCTS Contract Tendering Consistency and Flexibility Major Focus of WSCA

In a meeting late last year with BC Timber Sales executives, the WSCA began discussions aimed at benefitting contractors through developing and applying more consistent and flexible tendering practices on BCTS contracts. Up for reconsideration is what is meant by the lowest qualified bidder. BCTS has indicated an open mind to tendering using a performance-based silviculture contractor rating system, similar to seedling procurement bidding. It also sees benefits, where practical, to tendering more long term contracts, including extending the terms for option-to-renew and multi-year contracts. More consistency around performance deposits, treatment of poor performers, pre-qualifications for bidders and related administrative and tendering problems are items intended to form a 2015 action plan to be developed between the WSCA and BCTS early this year. The WSCA has offered to assist in conducting workshops to improve both the performance of BCTS and contractors when it comes to contract and business relations.

newforest · Post by **newforest** » Sat Jan 10, 2015 7:24 am

That should be pretty good news for good planting contractors.

My (U.S.) Federal Forest Service frequently attempts to use long-term contract structures. However, they are so difficult to work with in that they accept poor quality work and ignore labor law violations so much, that few even attempt to compete for their contracts in the first place, which go for ridiculously low prices. Then when they issue a long term contract, they use a contract structure that includes renewal options for the government, which is pretty simple for seasonal work. However from what I have seen, few of these contracts run the entire four or five year period theoretically possible in the contract before the field personnel reject the renewal option for performance issues, &/or the office personnel do the same as the labor type regulatory agencies ever so slowly catch up to the most egregious violators of labor law. (That doesn't put them out of business, it just gets them crossed off bidding lists, one small agency district at a time, and they move on to dumber pastures). This does give glimmers of hope sometimes that the forestry labor situation can improve, and sometimes this results in a given agency office not having any of the worst contractors on their bidding list any more, though they have to suffer through numerous project failures to reach that point.

Evergreen · Post by **Evergreen** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:03 pm

For what it's worth, here is a chart comparing tender results from Government contracts from 2012 through 2015. These are all interior contracts tendered by BCTS, MOFL or FFT. The coast bidding season is not yet complete for 2015 so those numbers aren't available yet. I don't claim to have results from all government contracts tendered but this definitely includes most of them and I believe everything posted on Replant plus a few. The lower number of contracts available for 2015 is a result of the growing number of multi-year renewable tenders being issued. I am aware of 11 contracts that are in either their 2nd or 3rd year and so don't appear in the 2015 results. These are relatively small samples so averages can be misleading. The one that is most stable is the average cents per tree left on the table. The one that is least stable is the average bid, which in 2015 went way up. I've attached an excel spreadsheet with these numbers if this post format is hard to read.

Year - Avg. winning bid - # Trees - # Contracts - Avg. Bid - Avg. left per tree - Avg. $ left to 2nd bidder

2012 - $0.306 - $42,224,815 - 33 - $0.361 - $0.028 - $35,643
2013 - $0.327 - $38,817,307 - 30 - $0.391 - $0.026 - $30,571
2014 - $0.326 - $39,889,277 - 33 - $0.407 - $0.025 - $29,707
2015 - $0.305 - $35,063,357 - 25 - $0.490 - $0.025 - $34,716

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:12 pm

No spreadsheet attached. It may be that the board doesn't allow them (I can't remember) or you have to specifically click the upload button beside the file name after you select it.

This is really great info. Thanks for sharing it. This is one of the reasons why it's great to have active participation from a small number of contractors on the board here, to share perspective. Ultimately, the goals of companies and planters can be aligned in many areas. Unfortunately, I know that a number of contractors are hesitant to post here lest they draw criticism from posters. Most of the companies that don't seem to have an obvious presence here have quiet accounts where they just read but refrain from actively posting.

Pandion · Post by **Pandion** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 8:38 am

Thanks for posting this up. Interesting to see the average winning bid drop from 2013 to 2015, while the average bid goes up.

Evergreen · Post by **Evergreen** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 9:51 am

Scooter wrote:No spreadsheet attached. It may be that the board doesn't allow them (I can't remember) or you have to specifically click the upload button beside the file name after you select it.

I've tried every way I could see and still can't attach a Word or Excel file.

Post by **Scooter** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 11:03 am

If you want to try to send it to me via email, I can try to post it. Maybe only an Admin is allowed to.
jonathan.scooter.clark@gmail.com

Zab · Post by **Zab** » Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:14 am

Contract: Pl16TFD001
Location: BCTS Kootenay Lake
# Trees: 890,200 plus 125k ferts & $3000 access

01. $326,491 - 36.7 - West Arm Silviculture
02. $376,247 - 42.3 - Evergreen
03. $386,031 - 43.4 - A&G
04. $389,957 - 43.8 - NGR
05. $391,976 - 44.0 - Fieldstone
06. $402,650 - 45.2 - Blue Collar
07. $440,419 - 49.5 - Raven

Heard one of the losing contractors who bid on this one made an appeal, which was granted. Second time around, again awarded to West Arm. I can't see a second document on it. Does anyone know what the criteria for the appeal was if this is true?

Post by **Scooter** » Tue Feb 03, 2015 7:20 am

I'm at the WSCA conference. I heard a bit about this last night. Let me try to dig up some more info today.

Post by **Scooter** » Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:13 am

Lots of chatter about this contract here at the conference.

I'll post a chart below to compare the first and second tender results.

West Arm is a small and local company, with very little overhead. Locals living out of their own houses, that sort of thing. They will be able to pay much better than NGR, the second in line on the new tender.

When the contract was re-tendered the wording was changed slightly. There was apparently some question after the first tender about whether or not West Arm qualified. Specifically, this was in the first contract: "(b) Submit one reference from the last three calendar years who can verify the proponents experience ...., had a contract of at least 500,000 seedlings over the last three calendar years."

The wording in the re-tender was "be able to verify; – provide references....planting of 620,000 seedlings in any single planting season (may be multiple clients)."

Thus, in the second tender, there was no question that West Arm was qualified.

It looks like BCTS probably tendered out the first one and then realized that they were breaking their own rules by giving the job to West Arm. So they realized that they had to re-tender it, but then obviously saw how much money they'd save by giving the job to West Arm, so they re-wrote the tender to ensure that they'd be able to take advantage of a low bid. Smart move on the part of BCTS, to save some money. Doesn't seem very fair to the other bidders though.

On a positive note, West Arm raised their bid on the second tender, so they actually got more money out of it in the end. They must have been sweating a bit when they realized that they weren't necessarily going to get the job that they thought they'd won.

I'd be interested to hear any comments from Evergreen. I haven't run into them yet at the Conference. They were next in line, so this presumably would have been frustrating for them. But I don't know why their second bid was higher. If they knew the bid sheet info after the first bid, they presumably would have known how aggressive they would have needed to be to be in the right ball park. Mind you, a drop of $50k to be "in the ball park" probably wasn't very palatable.

Evergreen · Post by **Evergreen** » Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:11 pm

There's no way we could have dropped our bid to get anywhere near West Arm. Since the original tender date, we secured enough work for our crews. In order to do the retendered job we would have had to hire outside help, use more expensive vehicles, reefers and supervision - much more risk involved with a new crew.

Scooter's assessment of what went down is correct. In the qualification criteria for the first bid, West Arm didn't qualify but was awarded the work anyway. We complained. BCTS didn't listen. We sent a formal complaint to the Vendor Complaint Review Panel in Victoria. They agreed that the contract was improperly awarded and recommended that it be retendered. BCTS rewrote the conditions of qualification and presto West Arm qualified.

Zab · Post by **Zab** » Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:04 pm

If BCTS didn't review or overlooked West Arm's qualifications, how did you find out about the lack of 500k contract reference? Went through all of the paperwork?

Post by **Scooter** » Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:34 pm

The tender documents are always available online. For every contact that I go out and view, I download and read the entire contract package. It's takes an hour or so, but it's smart to skim through the whole thing in case any odd clauses jump out. 90% of each contact is copy and pasted from a BCTS standard format, so you get pretty good at noticing the parts that are unique to a specific tender.

Evergreen · Post by **Evergreen** » Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:35 pm

Contractors in general are pretty aware of who's doing what work and how much. There are a limited number of private licensees letting out contracts in the West Kootenays. Government contracts are well documented and available for reference. I made a few calls and it became pretty clear that they hadn't done a single contract of 500,000 trees in the last three years.

Evergreen · Post by **Evergreen** » Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:07 am

BCTS Port Alberni - March-April Planting & Protection
PL15TCD041
264,960 trees - 30,569 sinocast cones - 27,380 T-bags - 5 mandays

$127,784 - Osprey
$152,169 - Evergreen
$158,035 - Fieldstone

whitepickup · Post by **whitepickup** » Thu Feb 12, 2015 7:45 am

PL16TBH001 Chinook Lower Mainland (Mission,Chilliwack,Hope, Boston Bar, Pemberton, Squamish)
Approx 750,000 trees, +protection

Osprey $423,262.54
Fieldstone $489,650.00
Zanzibar $493,454.62
Leader $507,182.08

shawniganlaker · Post by **shawniganlaker** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:45 pm

And they're back...that is a shame...great bidding from all others involved in these last two. Boycott Dirty Bird - Please don't enable them

Post by **Scooter** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:56 pm

I'm thinking about some improvements I can make to Replant right now, and I have a quick question. We have a few brushing results in this thread now, and I think we should be collecting more brushing results in the future since it's all part of silviculture and reforestation.

Should we keep them mixed in with the planting threads and organized by year? Or should we have a separate Brushing/Spacing thread in the Public Bid Results forum that is exclusively for saw work?

There isn't enough out there to warrant annual brushing/spacing threads, in my opinion, although I'm not 100% committed to that opinion, and could change my mind in the future.

Angkorwat · Post by **Angkorwat** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:34 pm

Document number: PL16TCG018
Title: Spring Planting - Campbell River Forest District

Results published after closing time. Posted on Tuesday 3 Mar 2015 at 02:48 PM
Number of tenders received: 4
The following entities provided responses:
Wagner Reforestation Ltd.
$351,137.90
Impact Reforestation Ltd.
$456,341.60
Fieldstone Resources Ltd.
$415,143.90
Leader Silviculture Ltd.
$373,078.10

Mike · Post by **Mike** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 6:35 pm

Document number: PL16TCG018
Title: Spring Planting - Campbell River Forest District

Results published after closing time. Posted on Tuesday 3 Mar 2015 at 02:48 PM
Number of tenders received: 4
The following entities provided responses:
Wagner Reforestation Ltd.
$351,137.90
Impact Reforestation Ltd.
$456,341.60
Fieldstone Resources Ltd.
$415,143.90
Leader Silviculture Ltd.
$373,078.10

This contract went to Leader.

Evergreen · Post by **Evergreen** » Fri Apr 03, 2015 12:53 pm

Re. BCTS Campbell River

It seems that the low bidder Wagner Silviculture did qualify based on the criteria listed in the Conditions of Tender for this contract. The question now is whether or not Leader actually qualified. Does anyone have any info as to whether Leader meets the criteria as follows;

that, in addition to 4.02(a) the Bidder has previously and satisfactorily completed within
the last three (3) years, and can substantiate their silviculture contracting experience of:
i) Coastal tree planting of a minimum of +/- 370,000 trees (4x4/ATV quad
access) under one contract ; and
ii) Coastal tree planting of a minimum of +/- 29,000 trees (combined helicopter
and/or partial helicopter access) under one contract; and
iii) Coastal tree planting of a minimum of +/- 20,000 trees (combined boat,
barge, and helicopter access) under one contract; and
iv) Fertilizer planting of a minimum of +/- 20,000 fertilizer teabags under one
contract.
v) Tree Protector Installation of a minimum of +/- 20,000 tree protectors under
one contract.
This experience must be in areas with a moderate or high degree of complexity
ie: coastal with moderate planting medium and terrain; as the Prime Contractor for
the Ministry or a major licensee.
Upon request, the Bidder must submit two (2) references from planting projects
completed within the past three (3) years, who can verify the Bidders qualification
experience.
(Please note re: Eligibility - there will not be any experience equivalency allowance
for solely Interior planting with moderate complexity accepted due to the unique
parameters on the Coast.)

Post by **Scooter** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:18 pm

Who are the current low bidders on the PG BCTS contracts?

I think PL16TGC002 went to Rhino. And 001 went to NGR but may have gone up to Blue Collar. Does anyone have any better information to contradict these guesses?