2019 Public Bid Results

mwainwright · Post by **mwainwright** » Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:10 pm

Everyone needs to make at least 100$ a day more than they do now. That’s how I feel, anyways.

Sunwatersoil · Post by **Sunwatersoil** » Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:57 pm

TripleS wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:23 pm The most important question is how much of these higher bids will end up in planters' pockets. As Scooter pointed out above, planters are long overdue for a raise, but do contractors agree? If they do, how much of a raise do they want to give their planters?

Planter’s tree prices are as much of a key component of planter retention as anything right now. As many company owners have planted in the past I would think many would like to see their planters paid well for their hard work. Not reducing the size of their portion of the pie but in the context of a larger pie to share.

It’s become public knowledge that the low bid price has risen across the board this early in the season and if it continues then I suspect planters will expect a rise in their tree price or other benefits like reduced camp costs or both.

As we’ve always seen, in the hiring frenzy of late winter and spring planters will walk from companies that don’t offer an appealing tree price. It’s the easiest (but not necessarily the best) measure to use when switching companies.

Contractors that aren’t making smart decisions now may have to reduce their share of the pie if they want to retain planters and compete for a shrinking pool of vet planters.

Sunwatersoil · Post by **Sunwatersoil** » Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:09 pm

I’d like to add on that planter retention is an important factor for foresters too. Planters familiar with contracts can only benefit everyone. Sometimes new planters to a company will only grow comfortable on a technical contract just as it’s finishing up.

Obstacle planting on the north-east side and pure mineral soil?

When it comes down to the direct award contracts I can only hope that Foresters are in agreement.

*Edited for clarification

Post by **Scooter** » Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:26 pm

Here's some additional good data submitted by a reader of this thread. It's a list of public trees that will be planted this year as part of multi-year, option-to-renew contracts from the past couple of seasons. Many thanks.

In each of these cases, the Client, Location, Size in Trees, and Start Year is listed.

Of course, this isn't a perfect summary, for a couple reasons. For one thing, either party to each contract is allowed to back out of the contract without repercussions (up to a certain point) if they don't want to continue that particular contractual relationship. This can happen on the part of the Client, for example if a planting company really screws up a lot of things, or it can happen on the part of the Contractor, if the price is not deemed to be fair based upon the past year's experience and the current market conditions. Also, the size of the contract (in trees) can vary from year to year. There are usually some limits, say variation allowed of up to 20% by trees, or by 10% of dollar amounts, or by 15% of hectare size, etc., depending on the contract. Any variations outside of those windows mean that the contract is cancelled and the new work must go out for public tender. However, considering that volumes are starting to move along an upward trajectory, chances are high that in most of the following contracts (if they're all still active), the number of trees in 2019 will be similar to the listed numbers, or if anything, slightly higher.

MOFL – P.G. – 1,552,031 – 2017
MOFL – Squamish – 336,160 - 2017
MOFL – Merritt – 706,420 - 2018
BCTS – Vernon South – 1,310,722 – 2018
BCTS – Vernon North – 631,050 – 2017
BCTS – Houston – 2,209,281 – 2018
BCTS – Clearwater – 1,250,882 - 2018

TOTAL POTENTIALLY OUTSTANDING IN MULTI-YEAR CONTRACTS: Approximately 7,996,546 trees

Again, some of these contracts may no longer be active for 2019. Also, there may be some multi-years that we've overlooked. For example, I think that Blue Collar may have an ongoing multi-year for the MOF in 100 Mile House, but I'm not positive about that.

At this point, it's also interesting to note that there are probably still a number of contracts yet to be tendered:
Southern Interior - ???
Kamloops - Probably 2 separate BCTS Kamloops contracts.
Mackenzie - I haven't seen anything released there yet, and there are usually two contracts up there.
Burns/Houston/Smithers - There are usually two or three contracts there. It may be that they're delayed in getting things together this fall due to the severity of the wildfire season in that district. Houston is probably out because they have a multi-year going on right now.
Fort St John - select list
Dawson Creek - select list

Bottom line: Above and beyond the 43 million trees already discussed for public tender this fall, there's another 8 million in multi-years, and quite a few million that are probably still to be published.

Post by **Scooter** » Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:29 pm

Off on a tangent for a minute, I was given some 2018 results from Manitoba a few weeks ago, which I already posted. The same individual has also sent me the 2016 and 2017 Manitoba numbers to share. Although they should probably go in old threads, they'd be of more interest right now so I'll attach them to this post.

Between now and Friday night, we should also hear results from at least four and possibly five more contracts (Vanderhoof, PG, Arrow South, Arrow North, and maybe the other Forsite Kamloops contract).

Cyper · Post by **Cyper** » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:24 am

MOFL will continue to pop out forest fire planting contracts. I saw one recently for the southern interior and have heard of others through the Forest Enhancement Society that won't be tendered until winter. There are millions more trees to be tendered. There's no doubt that we'll handily exceed the volumes we couldn't quite deal with in 2018.
$100 more dollars per day per planter while probably being a good mid-term goal, isn't going to happen right away. I do think we can realistically hope for $50 in 2019. That would be a combination of higher wages and reduced or eliminated camp costs.
The WFCA has made a concerted effort to get the word out to contractors, foresters and the government. There are still bound to be some perhaps smaller local contractors who don't have a lot of interaction with the rest of the industry, that won't realize that they have this opportunity to bump prices up. That appeared maybe to be the case with Fireweed in Revelstoke. I'm not saying that's a bad price as they are local and know what they're doing, but they could have safely raised their prices by 10% and still had breathing room. We may see the same kind of thing in the southern interior, where there are small local contractors in the mix.
After this week there is a hiatus of bids opening until mid-November when there's a week that will see 15 to 20 million government trees awarded.

Post by **Scooter** » Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:04 pm

Here is perhaps the most stunning bid (to me) in all my years of bidding. This one is for Planting in Vanderhoof

Contract: PL20TJE005
Client: BCTS Vanderhoof
# of Trees: 341,875
Season: Spring 2018
Left on the Table: 26.4%

Why do I say that this is stunning? Well, aside from the fact that so much was left on the table, I also viewed this job myself. And I picked planter prices that averaged THIRTY PERCENT higher than the burns that my camp planted in Vanderhoof last year. And yet we still left this much on the table. WTF? I thought we would be one of the highest bids, and I looked at each block pretty thoroughly, to make sure there were no hidden surprises.

Admittedly, we will have a camp right there working on a separate direct award job for a private licensee, so there is no cost to us for setting up a camp. And this is only 300,000 trees (not the 342k advertised), so it's only three days of work. Regardless, I feel conflicted. I have a sinking feeling in my stomach because we left this much on the table - it's not a lot in terms of dollars, but it's a lot in terms of percentage. And yet at the same time, it's a thirty percent increase in prices over last year's work in the same area!

Let this be a lesson to all contractors reading this ... don't undersell yourself.

EDIT: The initial numbers that were published were incorrect. The numbers below have been revised to the proper bids.

01. $129,788 - 38.0 cents/tree - Folklore
02. $164,100 - 48.0 cents/tree - Waterside
03. $195,700 - 57.2 cents/tree - Seneca
04. $202,113 - 59.1 cents/tree - Brinkman
05. $260,496 - 76.2 cents/tree - Apex

jdtesluk · Post by **jdtesluk** » Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:27 pm

Wow. Surely this will attract some interesting comments from competitors

Don't beat yourself up though.

You make an important point here in how people judge individual bidding sheets, "I picked planter prices that averaged THIRTY PERCENT higher..."

Workers should judge employers by their earnings and treatment. There are some lessons to glean from the bid-sheets, but throwing individual companies under the bus for a singular bid is not one of them. I think we can expect continued variance in bids until a new market norm is reached. There will be also some companies throwing down unreasonably high bids hoping they can snag a job where everyone does the same. Chaos before order.

Post by **Scooter** » Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:33 pm

Any comments I get are deserved. Mea culpa.

On one hand, you're completely correct Jordan. What matters the most is what goes into planters' pockets at the end of the day. Or what's on their T4 at the end of the year.

Regardless, as I've already mentioned earlier, that's still no excuse for bidding below the market. A company can have money flowing in from a dozen different sources, which obviates the need to worry about covering overhead with the planting revenue. But if you leave money on the table, you may as well just put a pile of cash in the parking lot, spray it with lighter fluid, and light the b&tch up.

In my mind, there can only be two valid reasons for the Folklore bid to be significantly under the others:

1. The other four bidders didn't even view it, and threw in blind lottery bids. I know for certain that one company did, but I don't have any insights about the other three.
Or ...
2. The other four bidders did consider the job seriously at first, but then decided that the logistical hassles for such a small number of trees weren't worth it. For instance, the job cannot be done in one chronological stretch. Some of the trees have to be planted in early May, and some in early June. Unless your company is already working in the area, that's extremely inconvenient. And secondly, there's one block that some companies may have bid as helicopter (if their bids were serious), although I eventually figured out a way to get a truck right into the block.

Either way, even if the Folklore bid was the only serious bid and it was a fair market price, we still left money on the table. I viewed these blocks several weeks ago, and at the time, based on my planter prices, I thought it was inconceivable that we'd place anywhere but the highest bid (we didn't need this job). I knew several nights ago that the average bids for this season so far have been up fifty percent over last year's numbers. I should have realized that I needed to revisit my prices and my assumptions for this job. There's no excuse for not thinking to do that, and there's no one to blame but myself.

I hope all of our competitors saw these results this afternoon, and quickly went back and revised their PG Bid numbers upwards. That, at least, would be some consolation.

Let loose the dogs of war ...

Cyper · Post by **Cyper** » Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:32 am

The conditions you describe for the Vanderhoof bid, small job, access issues that you'd solved where others probably hadn't, split timing - start, stop & start and the current market trends point to higher bids than normal. Since the market is anything but normal right now, it would follow that this job would go for a premium. Hindsight is easy, but these are the lessons that need to be learned going forward if contractors and hence planters are going to cash in. And cash in we all should. It is long overdue!
Today tenders for a BCTS contract in Prince George open. It is not a small job and has almost a million summer trees to go with the 1.5 million spring trees. I should think it is very attractive for large northern contractors. This one is the opposite of the Vanderhoof job. It's big and planters are easier to find for summer trees. The spring rookies should already hopefully have been brought up to above minimum wage speed. The prices that come down for this work will be very interesting. They'll show where contractors are more accurately when they really want a job. Will they be able to restrain themselves from going back to the old ways? We'll soon see.

Post by **Scooter** » Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:26 am

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

Contract: PL20TGC001
Client: BCTS Prince George
Season: Spring/Summer 2019
# of Trees: 2,388,343
Left on the Table: 7.5%

Prices are definitely going up.

01. $1,097,742 - 46.0 cents/tree - Folklore
02. $1,179,971 - 49.4 cents/tree - Celtic
03. $1,395,953 - 58.4 cents/tree - Seneca
04. $1,420,630 - 59.5 cents/tree - Spectrum
05. $1,627,278 - 68.1 cents/tree - Apex

----------

Running totals for this season, Fall 2018:

Overall weighted average low bid: 45.8 cents/tree
Overall weighted average awarded bid: 47.6 cents/tree
Overall weighted average including all bids, all jobs: 59.5 cents/tree

Average increase in overall bid prices since last fall: 53.0%

Total Trees Known/Decided So Far: 9,281,047
Total Trees in Public Tenders to Date: 43,948,737

One Year Ago, Fall 2017:

Overall weighted average low bid: 32.0 cents/tree
Overall weighted average awarded bid: was not tracked
Overall weighted average including all bids, all jobs: 38.9 cents/tree

Total Trees in Public Tenders last year: 53,827,000

----------

Cyper · Post by **Cyper** » Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:49 am

The lowest bid on this Prince George contract is 15% higher than the highest bid on both BCTS Prince George planting contracts tendered for 2018 spring!
Is that as amazing as it appears to be or was the ground or access for the 2019 job particularly more difficult than on the 2018 jobs?

Cyper · Post by **Cyper** » Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:38 pm

Something that's odd about these last couple of bid results is that Folklore is low on both. Looking at bid results for government work for the last few years, Folklore has been one of the higher bidders winning only one contract in both 2017 and 2018. Have they adjusted their bids upwards enough being that in general they were higher already? Well obviously they could have bid somewhat higher. So why didn't they? Probably a big part of the reason is that they have direct award work adjacent to both of these jobs and adding work on when a camp is already in place has obvious savings attached. Another reason would be that hey know the ground as well or better than anyone.

Even so, wouldn't it be nice if there was a mechanism where Folklore could declare themselves full (if they are) and allay any fears that competitors might have that in order to compete with Folklore, they'll have to sharpen their pencils. I'd hope that contractors are tuned into some common source of info akin to the King Kong Facebook page, where they can keep abreast of what's going on.

Post by **Scooter** » Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:36 pm

A related question comes with respect to capacity, especially with companies that run camps. Will any companies decide to take advantage of the apparently recovery in pricing to justify expansion?

My thought is that such a move would be foolish. If a few companies expanded, it would eliminate the oversupply of work that is partially causing this recovery. It makes more sense for a company to actually make normal money on existing jobs than it does to make lower margins on higher volumes. Many companies have already learned that lesson the past decade, some in the past two or three years.

On top of that, here are several more key reasons why it doesn't make sense to expand operations:
1. It costs a LOT of money to build a new camp. This doesn't apply to motel operations, but the rest of the points here do.
2. From a management perspective, fair margins on a limited amount of work is much easier and less stressful than low margins on larger numbers of trees.
3. If this oversupply of work tapers off in 2021, as may be the case, then you're expended all that energy to expand and suddenly you can't find enough work to sustain your larger company. it's easier to scale back your base level labour force when reducing the size of your company, but much harder to reduce the size of upper management (plus you'll have equipment/assets sitting idle).
4. Experience Ratio: Expanding operations dilutes your ratio of experienced workers and management in other existing camps. This leads to more rookies, more headaches, and more top-up costs. Also, rookies learn best when surrounded by vets, not when surrounded by other rookies. This point rarely gets the attention it deserves.
5. Labour shortfall: What if you can't hire enough qualified workers for your expanded operations?
6. Reputation: Any company that is seen to be expanding operations might be judged poorly in the court of public opinion, which again could affect hiring success.

In short, I would hope that there is a low chance that most companies will try expanding right now, most especially because of the labour supply issues that the industry currently faces, aside from maybe planning to add another half dozen or dozen planters here or there to satisfy production requirements for existing direct award clients. In fact, there are some companies that are scaling back operations significantly in 2019 compared to 2018.

Tnalp · Post by **Tnalp** » Thu Oct 25, 2018 9:08 pm

.."declare themselves full"? WHY? Really?

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Oct 26, 2018 7:39 am

Another phenomena that hasn't really been discussed yet is the bids that are going up past the #1 position low bidder. I haven't bothered tracking that in past years, because it's only possible to hear about these cases through the grapevine, which is sometimes slow. Most of the past five or six years, there have only been one or two jobs each year that moved up past the low bid. However, this year, there are already five contracts that I'm aware of that have moved up to the second place bidder (or possibly beyond). For instance, I believe that the Revelstoke job (PL20TKR002) has gone up past Fireweed. That would be an especially lucrative job for Evergreen at 68 cents per tree, if they end up taking it.

In cases where I know of jobs that have gone up past low bidder, I'm adding the results to the tracking spreadsheet that I'm posting here every weekend. That's why the although the average low bid price for the season so far is 45.8 cents per tree (!!), the average "awarded" bid price seems to be sitting around 48.2 cents/tree. And that should go up later today after the openings at Arrow South and Arrow North this morning.

Cyper · Post by **Cyper** » Fri Oct 26, 2018 7:41 am

Tnalp wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 9:08 pm .."declare themselves full"? WHY? Really?

I know it's a novel concept, but imagine if contractors could actually cooperate in such a manner? Would that be collusion? I don't think so. As the bid lottery progresses and the players dwindle, those knowing who's still in the game and who's not could adjust their bids accordingly. Just dreaming. It's great to see this obvious price adjustment taking place with bids that have opened for 2019. I'd like to see it keep going. We have a lot of catching up to do.

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Oct 26, 2018 9:45 pm

Cyper wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:49 am The lowest bid on this Prince George contract is 15% higher than the highest bid on both BCTS Prince George planting contracts tendered for 2018 spring!
Is that as amazing as it appears to be or was the ground or access for the 2019 job particularly more difficult than on the 2018 jobs?

If that was directed at me, I'm unable to answer. I only looked at the five blocks in Valemont. Other people in our office looked at everything else. The Valemont blocks seemed like ... Valemont blocks. I had been on a couple of them already, a few years ago. The road going up to two of them (the burned ones at the end) is pretty steep. 1st gear for parts of that road. I parked several hundred meters away from the entrance to one of that pair, because the last bit of road leading to the block looked sketchy for a truck. The height didn't bother me, but the slick mud on the road did. I wrote down that there should be extra money to pay the planters for that walk in, just in case it isn't dry at the time of planting.

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Oct 26, 2018 9:52 pm

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

Contract: PL20TFG004
Client: BCTS Nelson
Season: Spring 2019
# of Trees: 745,900
Left on the Table: 12.6%

One of two that opened today out of Nelson.

01. $434,662 - 58.3 cents/tree - West Arm
02. $489,230 - 65.6 cents/tree - Evergreen
03. $489,664 - 65.6 cents/tree - NGR
04. $498,000 - 66.8 cents/tree - Celtic
05. $597,977 - 80.2 cents/tree - Zanzibar

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Oct 26, 2018 9:57 pm

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

Contract: PL20TFG003
Client: BCTS Nelson
Season: Spring 2019
# of Trees: 836,104
Left on the Table: 2.0%

This may win the prize so far for the lowest percentage left on the table. Nice work Rory, congratulations.

01. $509,126 - 60.9 cents/tree - Celtic
02. $519,558 - 62.1 cents/tree - Evergreen
03. $562,492 - 67.3 cents/tree - All Stars
04. $585,144 - 70.0 cents/tree - NGR
05. $607,437 - 72.7 cents/tree - Zanzibar

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:13 pm

YTD Viewing/Bidding Season Stats, Week Ending October 26th, 2018

Running totals for this season, Fall of 2018:

Overall weighted average low bid: 47.8 cents/tree
Overall weighted average awarded bid: 49.9 cents/tree
Overall weighted average including all bids, all jobs: 60.4 cents/tree

Average increase in overall bid prices since last fall: 55.3%

Total Trees Known/Decided So Far: 10,863,051
Total Trees in Public Tenders to Date: 47,525,624

One Year Ago, Fall of 2017:

Overall weighted average low bid: 32.0 cents/tree
Overall weighted average awarded bid: not tracked in 2017
Overall weighted average including all bids, all jobs: 38.9 cents/tree

Total Trees in Public Tenders last year: 53,827,000

---------------------------------------------------------------

All the numbers have climbed slightly this week, despite a couple of contracts that opened in areas traditionally considered as easy ground.

Next week will be quiet, with only one bid opening (Fort St James). The following week will again be quiet, with only two openings. After that, bedlam, with 11 bids opening in a two-week stretch.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Post by **Scooter** » Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:20 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Kamloops

Contract: PL20FOR001
Client: Forsite Consulting Ltd.
# of Trees: 1,307,855
Season: Spring 2019
Left on the Table: 19.8%

This is for more area up the Scottie Creek FSR, in the fire. That's going to be a busy area in the spring.

Dynamic declined this job, and Leader accepted it.

01. $618,615 - 47.3 cents/tree - Dynamic
02. $740,882 - 56.6 cents/tree - Leader
03. $749,188 - 57.3 cents/tree - Apex
04. $758,556 - 58.0 cents/tree - Evergreen
05. $759,510 - 58.1 cents/tree - Zanzibar
06. $788,842 - 60.3 cents/tree - Brinkman
07. $824,603 - 63.1 cents/tree - Celtic
08. $833,747 - 63.7 cents/tree - A&G
09. $881,773 - 67.4 cents/tree - Folklore

Post by **Scooter** » Wed Oct 31, 2018 10:23 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Fort St James

Contract: PL20TJE001
Client: BCTS Fort St James
Season: Spring 2019
# of Trees: 1,348,819
Left on the Table: 2.1%

This one bucked the trend and went lower than recent bids. Seems like everyone had some interest in this one. But how much of it was serious interest, and how much of it was just putting in an appearance? The ground was pretty easy though. Now that Spectrum has won a job, it'll give them something to chew on and keep their stomach from rumbling.

Contractors: Remember that it's still early in the season. There are fourteen more public contracts being awarded in the next three weeks alone, then half a dozen the week after that, and half a dozen more in December/January. Lots of trees left. The number of public tender trees that I've been able to account for so far is already at 50.5 million (of which only 13.5m have been decided so far). We'll certainly exceed last year's total of 52.8 million quite handily. Lots to go around, no need to be anxious.

01. $524,239 - 38.9 cents/tree - Spectrum
02. $535,138 - 39.7 cents/tree - Coast Range
03. $569,536 - 42.2 cents/tree - Blue Collar
04. $635,682 - 47.1 cents/tree - Dynamic
05. $661,469 - 49.0 cents/tree - Seneca
06. $668,951 - 49.6 cents/tree - Artisan
07. $685,049 - 50.8 cents/tree - Apex
08. $696,124 - 51.7 cents/tree - Folklore
09. $767,231 - 56.9 cents/tree - Celtic

Post by **Scooter** » Thu Nov 01, 2018 4:49 pm

YTD Viewing/Bidding Season Stats, Week Ending November 1st, 2018

Running totals for this season, Fall of 2018:

Overall weighted average low bid: 46.9 cents/tree
Overall weighted average awarded bid: 49.4 cents/tree
Overall weighted average including all bids, all jobs: 58.5 cents/tree

Average increase in overall bid prices since last fall: 50.4%

Total Trees Known/Decided So Far: 13,519,725
Total Trees in Public Tenders to Date: 52,846,569

One Year Ago, Fall of 2017:

Overall weighted average low bid: 32.0 cents/tree
Overall weighted average awarded bid: not tracked in 2017
Overall weighted average including all bids, all jobs: 38.9 cents/tree

Total Trees in Public Tenders last year: 53,827,000

---------------------------------------------------------------

I'm posting this a day early this week, since I may not be near a computer tomorrow. Also, there aren't any public contracts being opened tomorrow.

As of this afternoon, the total number of public trees out there now has hit 52.847 million. I believe that's a new record. We've just exceeded last year's total of 52.827m for the entire fall 2017 viewing season, with more to come. To be fair, this number includes a contract in Chilliwack, which I was hesitant to include at first because it's so different than the rest of the Interior contracts (it's more like a coastal contract). So you might want to reduce the total by 900k if you don't subscribe to the notion that the Chilliwack trees should be included in these numbers. However, one of the Mackenzie bids that came out this afternoon also states that it is for slightly over 1 million trees, with an additional 1.2m trees "possible." I didn't include those extras, so that should balance out the Chilliwack numbers being included.

I also noticed that a couple of the jobs that came online today have closing dates before November 20th. That's a short tender period. Wise, on the part of those foresters. They know that our industry might not have the capacity to do all the work, and the jobs tendered at the end of the viewing/bidding season may be very pricey if no contractors are willing to gamble on being able to complete them in a timely manner with respect to contract deadlines (or at all). Again, if contractors don't get too nervous over the next couple of weeks, and bid too low to avoid being shut out, they'll be able to pick up some very reasonably priced trees before the dust settles.

The big story right now that nobody is talking about (online) yet is the severe shortage of summer stock available to BCTS.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Post by **Scooter** » Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:00 pm

For some reason, the BCTS Golden Contract (PL20TKR003) has been retendered. I'm not sure why. I don't think we've seen this happen in the past eight years since we started keeping track of the bidding here, although of course BCTS and MOF reserve the right not to accept the lowest or any other bid. I believe that after Zanzibar was deemed ineligible for some reason, Brinkman was next in line. Perhaps Brinkman was unable to commit to signing the contract, and the same happened with the other two bidders? Perhaps the dollar amount was outside of the tendering office's budgeted amount, and got turned down by their head office?

If the latter, they may be in for a surprise if the bids on the second round are even higher. That will be one to watch closely. The revised tender 2.0 opens on November 19th.

Here's a link to the original set of results: viewtopic.php?f=27&t=67246#p92094

From the eAdvertisment:

Questions & Answers
All contract related questions must be submitted in writing ONLY to the following email address: TOC.TimberAuctions@gov.bc.ca. Deadline for receiving questions is 4:00 p.m., November 9, 2018. If questions are received, a Question & Answer document will be posted to BC Bid by 4:00 p.m., November 13, 2018.

Perhaps someone will send in a question to ask why the contract had to be re-tendered.

Post by **Scooter** » Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:07 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Vernon (TOC South)

Contract: PL20TKN005
Client: BCTS Vernon
# of Trees: 1,109,635
Season: Spring 2018
Left on the Table: 2.3%

I didn't look at this contract, so I can't comment on the price in relation to the land and logistics. However, based upon the grouping of the lowest three bids, this seems like it should be a fair price for Seneca.

01. $473,074 - 42.6 cents/tree - Seneca
02. $483,880 - 43.6 cents/tree - Raven Ventures
03. $507,400 - 45.7 cents/tree - Zanzibar
04. $647,357 - 58.3 cents/tree - All Stars
05. $726,661 - 65.5 cents/tree - Blue Collar

jdtesluk · Post by **jdtesluk** » Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:50 pm

It's always good when a company wins a close bid in their main area of operating.

As for the Golden bid, there is some double-black diamond stuff up there - no wonder at the high price. My first day planting in Golden, back in 1997, was for 50-cent trees (f-layer). It was one of the harder money blocks on the job.

Cyper · Post by **Cyper** » Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:00 am

Regarding the Golden retender, it only makes sense from the government's perspective. If I'm the BCTS forester and I see that there's a reputable company that has screwed up their tender thereby making themselves ineligible, and their price is considerably lower than the next bidder, I'm going to start thinking about how I can save my carefully planned planting budget. I could offer the job to the next bidder up the line or if I'm thinking and care about tax payer money, I might just call up the low bid contractor, in this case Zanzibar and ask them if they'd give me a similar bid if I retendered it. Zanzibar already has work around Golden and are still hungry for more as their recent bid results show.

In the case of the Golden contract Zanzibar is $60,000 under Brinkman, who is another $40,000 under Celtic. That's pretty big tax payer's money I can save if I go through the easy steps required to retender. There's nothing underhanded about this. The wording in the Conditions of Tender clearly give BCTS the right to do this. Now if I'm another interested contractor, I know I can get this job if I just bid a little higher than Zanzibar did originally. Don't you think Zanzibar will want to make up some of that $60,000 they left on the table?

If this contract had been offered to any of the contractors up the line, they would have had little choice but to accept it, so that could not have happened. The penalties are too big for refusing contracts that are offered.

Cyper · Post by **Cyper** » Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:07 am

The TOC South contract that just went to Seneca has 440,000 summer trees included in the 1.1 million. Could that be why these trees went for the price they did? Does having summer trees appeal to contractors enough to get them to bid lower? If it truly is a supply and demand market, then obviously the summer market has less trees and lots of planters so wouldn't those prices naturally be lower?

Cyper · Post by **Cyper** » Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:23 am

Looking more closely at the Vernon bid results it becomes apparent that these bids are significantly higher than those received for this area over the last 5 years. In fact these prices are 37% higher than they were last year. Here's a list of what this job has gone for over the last 5 years, with the average bid received as well:

2019 - $.426 - $.51
2018 - $.31 - $.37
2017 - $.28 - $.32
2016 - $.36 - $.38
2015 - $.30 - $.34

This contract would appear to be a pretty easy one with small stock, no heli and blocks relatively close together. The summer production quota is 40,000 per day but otherwise there's no reason why this job is particularly harder than what it's been in the past. Great to see these prices up so much!

Post by **Scooter** » Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:56 pm

Does having summer trees appeal to contractors enough to get them to bid lower?

Yes, it definitely did, for several years. However, I think that this situation was pointed out here and in other forums, and some foresters started to plant more summer trees to take advantage of the situation. It seems that in the past two or three years, the situation has balanced out the seasons somewhat, so there are a lot more summer trees now than there were several years ago. That's just my gut feeling though, and not based on any numerical analysis. I do know, however, that six or eight years ago, a lot of companies seemed to stop planting on June 21st, and now, it's quite common for many companies to plant into mid July or late July.

Or in cases like last year, when things were falling apart everywhere, into late August.

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:07 pm

YTD Viewing/Bidding Season Stats, Week Ending November 9th, 2018

Running totals for this season, Fall of 2018:

Overall weighted average low bid: 46.6 cents/tree
Overall weighted average awarded bid: 48.9 cents/tree
Overall weighted average including all bids, all jobs: 58.0 cents/tree

Average increase in overall bid prices since last fall: 49.1%

Total Trees Known/Decided So Far: 14,629,360
Total Trees in Public Tenders to Date: 54,576,748

One Year Ago, Fall of 2017:

Overall weighted average low bid: 32.0 cents/tree
Overall weighted average awarded bid: not tracked in 2017
Overall weighted average including all bids, all jobs: 38.9 cents/tree

Total Trees in Public Tenders last year: 53,827,000

------

Although it's been a quiet week, it has also been an interesting week.

BCTS Clearwater has a contract out now. It was posted on November 1st, with a due date of November 19th. The contract is PL20TEE001. Interestingly, PL19TEE001 for BCTS Clearwater was a 3-year OTR. Based upon the public information, it appears that Dynamic and BCTS Clearwater did not mutually decide to continue with the second year of this contract. While I'm purely speculating here, not having any inside information, it looks possible that Dynamic intentionally walked away from a guaranteed 1.03 million trees at 48.7 cents.

The BCTS Vernon bid was the only new set of results this week. MOF Williams Lake, a large contract of slightly over four million trees that was open only to a group of bidders on a select list, was opened yesterday but has subsequently been re-tendered. Surprisingly, it sounds like the forester thinks that one of the bids for that job was too low. It may seem strange that a public servant would cancel the award (which is entirely within their contractual rights) after seeing the bids, and contact bidders to suggest that some may want to revisit their bids to ensure that they are fully aware of the challenges associated with the job. Part of the re-tender process will require that bidders demonstrate their capacity to complete a project of this complexity, and other mandatories. That may sound strange, considering that government bids are usually focused on getting the lowest possible price, which saves the most money for the taxpayer. However, it's important to remember that the cost of a failure-to-complete would be significantly higher to the government than any incremental cost associated with this re-tender. I have to applaud this particular forester/office for doing what is best for the long term. Far too many people in charge of tendering contracts (in all industries) have a myopic and short-sighted focus on beating their budgets, even though it may not be in the best long-term interests of stakeholders.

A total of TWENTY public planting contracts in BC will be awarded over the next twenty days. This is by far the most intense and closely-spaced series of tender closings that I've ever seen. I have a feeling that this forum will see a lot of traffic between now and the start of December. It's also interesting to note that more regular planters are following these results than ever before, instead of this topic being predominantly of interest to management, owners, and foresters. Many planters will be considering all of these public bid results as one of several key criteria in deciding which companies to plant for in 2019.

Finally, there's an interesting tender online right now for seedling production. I'll share that later this weekend.

Post by **Scooter** » Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:19 pm

Here are the results for another contract for Planting in Fort St James

Contract: PL20TJE002
Client: BCTS Fort St James
Season: Spring 2019
# of Trees: 2,377,000
Left on the Table: 2.0%

Congratulations to Coast Range for a very good bid result, barely anything left on the table. I didn't look at this contract, but I talked to the person who did, and he said that it is very nice ground.

01. $0,973,020 - 40.9 cents/tree - Coast Range
02. $0,992,648 - 41.8 cents/tree - Folklore
03. $1,075,061 - 45.2 cents/tree - Celtic
04. $1,134,139 - 47.7 cents/tree - Dynamic
05. $1,163,359 - 48.9 cents/tree - Apex
06. $1,167,258 - 49.1 cents/tree - Artisan
07. $1,214,732 - 51.1 cents/tree - Seneca

Cyper · Post by **Cyper** » Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:17 am

BCTS in general seems to be in denial about the need for prices to go up. There have been numerous examples of contractors refusing to renew multi year deals because BCTS won't budge upwards on pricing. I think the WFCA sent BCTS info on why prices had to go up. Chances are they either didn't read it or nobody had the gumption or insight to adjust expectations across their organization. Sadly although BCTS has gone to the largely ineffective contractor rating system in hopes of obtaining better contractors, their refusal to accept price increases from renewing contractors will drive them in the wrong direction.

BCTS has posted questions & answers for the Golden contract they've retendered in hopes of getting lower prices.

PL20TKR003
Tree Planting – Golden/Revelstoke/Shuswap
Q: This seems to be the same job that was already tendered (as PL20TKR003)?
A: The treatment units are the same but the terms and conditions have changed. The conditions of tender have also been revised.
Q: Just want to know why the exact contract has been retendered on BCBID or am I missing something.
Everyones prices have been posted and not sure I understand why it was retendered. Zanzibar was ineligible the first time, and just wondering what is up.
There have been a few tenders over the years where we have been successful/LOWEST but forgot a mandatory and wished we got a do-over.
A: I can’t speak to the past but all eligible bids for this original tender were significantly over the cost estimate. We have changed the terms and conditions as well as the conditions of tender and re-tendering in hopes of drawing in more competitive bids to meet our requirements of ensuring fair value for services. We anticipate changes in the tender will impact potential new bids.

From what I can see, they've made it easier for small contractors to qualify and have removed the Option to Renew clause. I can't see why prices would be lower unless contractors who haven't filled up yet, are getting desperate. There are still many millions of trees to bid on.

newforest · Post by **newforest** » Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:41 am

"all eligible bids for this original tender were significantly over the cost estimate"

&

"to meet our requirements of ensuring fair value for services"

both kind of say ... something, about the speaker, that is. don't mind me though, I am from another planet.

Post by **Scooter** » Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:43 am

A: I can’t speak to the past but all eligible bids for this original tender were significantly over the cost estimate. We have changed the terms and conditions as well as the conditions of tender and re-tendering in hopes of drawing in more competitive bids to meet our requirements of ensuring fair value for services.

I believe that this is going to continue to be an ongoing issue. BCTS foresters apparently need to put in a cost estimate to their bosses when drawing up the contracts. If the lowest tender is significantly over their guess, it doesn't meet their acceptance criteria, and needs to be re-tendered. I suspect that in many cases, the price increases that we've seen so far blindsided the foresters, and came in significantly over their clerical estimates.

It could backfire on them, if prices submitted by contractors in round two of any re-tender are even higher (because contractors are at capacity).

On that note, I have some new results to post later tonight when I have a bit more time. Also, on a somewhat related topic, yesterday's PL20TJE002 contract in Fort St James is apparently going to be re-tendered (the third re-tender this month), so Coast Range doesn't have that contract anymore. However, the re-tender on that contract is apparently due to a clerical error rather than a "rejection" of the tendered prices. Even so, I suspect that by the time it is re-tendered, at least a few of the contractors will either submit higher prices, or drop out entirely because they've found alternative work.

Post by **Scooter** » Thu Nov 15, 2018 5:30 pm

On a completely separate note, I see that BCTS Kamloops has issued amendments to the PL20TED002 contract, which now require 20x20 screef to mineral soil (including through ash), with sides that don't slope in to the center. That's an interesting twist. On a positive note, they've specifically written in the contract that if a contractor leaves a hole on a block, it has to be a single hole, and at the front. It's always annoying to have to come in and clean up another contractor's mess, or find that the only open ground is at the very back of the block. To be fair, my own camp has screwed up a few times and done the same, although we really try hard to avoid it.

Also, thankfully, the documents now clarify that the "fill plants" and "raw plants" both need to be treated the same way, ie. with respect to the need to space off all green residuals. The only difference is that the "raw plants" are acknowledged as being fill plants that are more open, rather than blocks where planters can just plant through everything. This would have been unfortunate if someone put in a blind bid, assuming that the raw blocks were really raw, considering that a lot of them have several hundred stems/hectare of good stock that survived the wildfires.

I think I'm going to try to catch up some of the non-planting bids first, since some people are curious about brushing and other silviculture activities, before I update all the planting bids.

Post by **Scooter** » Thu Nov 15, 2018 5:45 pm

I mentioned earlier that BCTS has a contract online for provision of seedlings. For anyone who is curious about things like this, it's an interesting read, and I learned quite a bit going through the contract documents. I've attached them all to this post so you don't have to go to BC Bid to find them, and I've converted them to PDF so the forum allows me to attach them. Most of these documents were in Word or Excel format on BC Bid.

The one thing that stands out to me from reading everything is a bit of a concern, unless I'm misinterpreting it. At the end of the Info To Bidders document, there's this section:

16. Packaging Procedures

All cartons for frozen storage must have a liner and be closed correctly to prevent moisture from escaping. Carton liners are not required for hot lift stock. All frozen-stored stock must have a paper/poly (kraft) carton or poly liner. All 2020 Requests must have poly liners only, no paper or kraft products will be permitted for these or future requests.

It sounds to me that plastic bag liners will be the norm in the future. I would have thought that BCTS would prefer to steer towards paper bag liners as being more environmentally sound, especially since grocery stores all over the country are trying to eliminate the use of plastic bags. I wonder if there's a reason for this that I don't understand (other than the fact that maybe plastic is just a lot less expensive).

Anyway, the main point is that this was pretty interesting to read through. There's a whole lot more to planting trees than just planting trees.

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:39 am

Here are the results of a contract for Brushing in Squamish

Contract: BR19LMN200
Client: MOF Squamish
Season: Fall 2018
Scope: 71.5 Ha
Opened: September 27, 2018
Left on the Table: 4.9%

This is for brushing three blocks, two of which are heli access. Some of the work is to be done by hand rather than by brush saw. See the contract documents attached to this post for additional information.

01. $140,063 - Leader
02. $146,911 - Evergreen
03. $195,800 - Zanzibar

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:52 am

Here are the results for a contract for Brushing in Williams Lake

Contract: BR19TLE002
Client: BCTS Williams Lake
Scope: 51.34 Ha
Opened: June 13, 2018
Left on the Table: 5.7%

This is for brushing work on 7 units. See the attached contract documents for additional information.

Next year, I'll start the bid results topic in August so I can summarize all of the brushing results up front, in advance of the fall brushing season. I considered starting a separate topic just for brushing results, but there's enough overlap between workers and companies who do both that it probably makes sense to keep these things together in this one topic. I may also throw some silviculture survey results up, if I find anything relevant.

01. $33,535 - Mihis Silviculture
02. $35,454 - Navrom
03. $60,251 - BBK Contracting

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:08 am

Here are the results for a contract for Brushing in Vanderhoof

Contract: BR19TJE008
Client: BCTS Vanderhoof
Scope: 170.2 Ha
Opened: May 31, 2018
Season: Fall 2018
Left on the Table: 39% !!

This one is spread across 7 units, but includes both brushing and mistletoe eradication.

I especially enjoyed reading the Q&A document on this one. Someone basically asked, "What do the blocks look like?" The forester, who was probably annoyed by a question like this from a contractor who was too lazy to even go out and look at the contract, basically answered, "It varies."

(Side note, I've occasionally asked a forester about a block or two that I wasn't able to access due to snow or other extenuating circumstances, but I can't imagine that there was still a significant amount of snow in late May).

01. $47,372 - Navrom Contracting
02. $65,876 - Spectrum
03. $66,420 - Celtic
04. $69,497 - Mihis Silviculture
05. $82,822 - Tootikoh Contracting
06. xxx - BBK Contracting (ineligible)

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:17 am

Here are the results for a contract for Brushing in Quesnel

Contract: BR19TLH009
Client: BCTS Quesnel
Season: Fall 2018
Opened: June 29, 2018
Scope: 138.3 Ha
Left on the Table: 16.7%

This one is four units, and all are manual brushing.

01. $ 80,860 - Dewan
02. $ 94,333 - AKD
03. $107,874 - Celtic
04. $109,119 - Mihis Silviculture
05. $153,928 - BBK Contracting

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:56 am

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

Contract: BR19TEG011
Client: BCTS 100 Mile House
Season: Fall 2018
Scope: 190.7 Ha
Opened: July 6, 2018
Left on the Table: Nothing??

The tender for this one was pretty basic ... one line item. I'm surprised they were even this detailed: "Manual Silviculture Brushing - Various locations – BCTS - 100 Mile House District." They probably just could have said "stuff."

I'm not sure if these tender results are correct. I would assume that if they weren't, they would have been corrected by now. So one of two things happened, either two companies each decided to bid exactly the same thing ($720.00) per hectare, or someone made a typo. If it's the former, this is why there's a slight risk to having such a simplified tender offer form.

I don't know who actually won this one. It's probably on BC Bid in the "awarded contracts" section.

01. $137,304 - Navrom Contracting
01. $137,304 - Mihis Silviculture
03. $186,886 - Celtic
04. $307,599 - BBK Contracting

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:07 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Herbicide Application in Prince George

Contract: BR19TGC001
Client: BCTS Prince George
Season: Late Summer 2018
Scope: 216.9 ha
Opened: July 9, 2018
Left on the Table: 124.8% !!

Here's a poorly judged bid. This was for work done a few months ago, herbicide backpack work. There are six blocks in total. Two thirds of the area is to be sprayed at 4.0 litres per Ha, and one third at 3.3 litres per Ha. The winning bid works out to only $344 per hectare.

01. $ 74,830 - Spectrum
02. $168,182 - Mihis Silviculture

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:18 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Brushing in TOC North/South

Contract; BR19TKN024
Client: BCTS Vernon
Season: Fall 2018
Opened: July 20, 2018
Scope: 71.8 Ha
Left on the Table: 40.9%

This contract is quite spread out, and has 18 work units. Three hectares of this total is juvenile spacing (40k stems/ha) rather than brushing.

01. $ 55,262 - Jeyo Enterprises
02. $ 77,865 - Mihis Silviculture
03. $120,832 - Raven Ventures
04. $136,420 - Celtic Reforestation

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:27 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Brushing in Chilliwack / Sea to Sky

Contract: BR19TBB002
Client: BCTS Chilliwack
Season: Fall 2018
Opened: August 2, 2018
Scope: approximately 215 Ha
Left on the Table: 47.2%

There are 23 unit on this contract. Lots of unknowns, some steep ground. Bidders were strongly urged to view the blocks carefully, because survey data wasn't complete.

01. $278,632 - Mihis Silviculture
02. $410,050 - GBF Technical Forest Services
03. $415,325 - Leader

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:36 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Planting on the South Island

Contract: PL19TCD033
Client: BCTS Port Alberni
Season: Fall 2018
Opened: August 8, 2018
# of Trees: 249,000
Left on the Table: 16.2%

This contract included approximately 75,000 heli access trees, and about 39,000 in fill plants. This contract would have been planted over the last couple of months.

As this contract is a coastal contract, I'm not going to be lumping it in with the data for the Interior work, because the tree prices would skew the data significantly. Although this is a contract which was recently completed, it will be useful to archive the bids here for future archival reference.

01. $160,480 - 64.4 cents/tree - Evergreen
02. $186,550 - 74.9 cents/tree - Brinkman
03. $235,480 - 94.6 cents/tree - Fieldstone

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:53 pm

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

Contract: PL19TCG048
Client: BCTS Campbell River
Season: Fall 2018 and Spring 2019
# of Trees: 524,000 fall 2018 and 214,000 spring 2019
Opened: August 22, 2018
Left on the Table: 9.9%

This contract included about 10% ferts for the fall portion, and 5% ferts for the upcoming spring portion. The fall portion included partial helicopter access for half a dozen blocks, and one block that was barge access.

Guillory Emery is probably a new name to regulars here. This company had roots with Bivouac.

01. $417,210 - 56.5 cents/tree - Guillory Emery
02. $458,490 - 62.1 cents/tree - Evergreen
03. $581,308 - 78.8 cents/tree - Leader
04. $666,303 - 90.3 cents/tree - Fieldstone
05. XXX - Brinkman - Ineligible

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 1:06 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Brushing & Girdling in Prince George

Contract: BR19TGC001
Client: BCTS Prince George
Season: Fall 2018
Opened: September 12, 2018
Scope: 107.4 Ha of Brushing, 8.0 Ha of Girdling
Left on the Table: 22.0%

This has 8 units for brushing, and 2 units for girdling.

01. $ 63,360 - Jeyo Enterprises
02. $ 77,318 - Celtic
03. $105,270 - AKD
04. $141,616 - Mihis Silviculture

Post by **Scooter** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 1:16 pm

Here are the results for a contract for Brushing in Revelstoke/Golden

Contract: BR20TKR004
Client: BCTS Vernon
Season: Summer 2019
Scope: 107.7 Ha
Opened: October 25, 2018
Left on the Table: 18.1%

This contract has a target start date of June 24th, 2019. It is comprised of seven blocks in total. This contract has an option-to-renew. There didn't appear to be a term length on the OTR, unless I missed it, so perhaps this one will renew indefinitely. Mihis will be brushing for all eternity.

01. $109,070 - Mihis Silviculture
02. $128,850 - Zanzibar