2019 Public Bid Results

[Scooter]

Information about past viewing/bidding seasons can be found in the other annual topics within this section of the Replant forums. If you're just now trying to understand how the whole public tender system works for reforestation projects in British Columbia, I'd recommend that you spend a few hours skimming through some of the content of past years' topics.

I'm going to start off this year's Bid Results topic by posting some of my thoughts about the state of the industry, and the direction that it needs to head. You can read my full essay (rant?) at this link:

http://jonathan-scooter-clark.blogspot. ... -tree.html

I welcome any comments about that post. You can post them here, rather than attaching them to the blog post itself. I posted that on the Replant facebook page too, from which it was shared widely, and within the first 72 hours it had been read more than seven thousand times.

Moving forward, this is going to be an interesting viewing/bidding season. I'll make a disclaimer right now that I do a lot of viewing work all throughout BC (and also throughout Alberta, to a lesser extent). I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I will point out that in the last seven years, I've looked at blocks on over 180 separate contracts, totaling almost a quarter billion trees, including both public and private sector viewing. Most years, I do this work between September 24th and Remembrance Day. There usually isn't a whole lot of stuff to view before late September (exception and kudos to BCTS Vanderhoof, which usually has their viewing package ready in late August).

This year is projected to be a strong year for BC's tree planting industry. That should theoretically be reflected in the volumes available to be viewed for public sector work this fall. My experience has been that we're already seeing strong evidence of that. I've already viewed eight full contracts (public and private) consisting of over twelve million seedlings. I'm taking a break now for a couple weeks to do some coastal planting work, but I anticipate that by early November, I'll have had my busiest viewing season yet.

As noted in my essay above, prices should be higher this fall than in any of the past several years. I'm pretty optimistic that will come to pass. As results come in, I'll post them here whenever I get a chance. Since I'll be hiding in the woods quite frequently, bear with me if it sometimes takes two or three days after the official closing before I post the results here.

One of the big concerns that I have right now relates to the planting of wildfires, and how to approach falling and DTA work in those projects. I'll be posting another blog post about that topic later tonight or tomorrow.

I highly encourage planters to share the results that will be posted in this topic. Your friends may be interested in some of the behaviour of various companies. Applicants who are also seeking first-time employment as tree planters in 2019 may also find this topic useful as one of many ways to evaluate various companies as being a good fit for you as a potential employer.

I'll try to put together a full report in February of 2019 to summarize all public bids and to do some statistical analysis on the results.

Let the games begin ...

[Scooter]

Oh yeah, my annual wish list ...

If I could list three things that I'd like to see happen to improve the whole tender process for all industry stakeholders in Fall 2018, it would be these:


Proper Consideration of Poor/Long Access

Contractors need to place more emphasis upon the negative effects of "long access" on production. I've already said this at least once in the past, but with fuel prices rising the way they are, this is becoming even more important. If it takes planters an exceptionally long time to get from their camp/motel to their cache to start planting, then companies need to take that unproductive time into account properly when setting prices. This downtime obviously includes more than just driving. It can encompass alternative methods of transportation (helicopter, water taxi, haglund). It needs to encompass the time for an on-block tailgate meeting, and getting planters to their actual caches. It needs to encompass waiting time, when applicable, for any number of reasons.

In the case of driving, if bidders use a "multiplier" approach to their bids, then a higher multiplier should be used for long access. To clarify, since some readers won't know what I'm talking about, let's say that a company historically has overhead costs that are about 110% of labour costs (the exact number can easily be determined by an accountant or a competent manager). So in other words, let say that from 2012-2018, Generic Reforestation Ltd. paid out an average of $427,000 per year in labour costs (tree prices) and all other expenses (trucks, fuel, motels, camps, food, mechanical, accounting, etc.) came to $470,000. Then in that case, the overhead expenses come out to about 110% (1.1x) the amount of the labour costs or tree prices. So if a company looks at a block and thinks the planters deserve to get paid 16.0 cents on the block, then the company probably needs to bid at least 33.6 cents overall in order to break even (the 16.0 cents that go to planters, and an additional 110% of that amount, or 17.6 cents, to cover expected overhead and operational expenses). That's a simplification that doesn't take payroll taxes or tons of other small things into account, but it's a good simple explanation. Anyway, the point is that with long drives, if a company is usually assigning a 110% markup of planter prices to a block, the markup actually needs to be higher for the blocks with long drives, because they are driving up the operational costs at a higher rate than the average block.

The higher bid prices shouldn't just be applied for long drives. They should be applied any time that known factors will conspire to impede the planters' production and therefore their daily earnings. For example, helicopter blocks often waste a lot of the planters' time. After all, the crew has to sit at Staging for various amounts of time, waiting for their turns to be flown into the block. The same applies at the end of the day, waiting turns to be flown out. And there are many other headaches and inefficiencies relating to helicopter work. I was at a pre-work for a coastal contractor today. I won't name the planting contractor, but the owner pointed out that there will be a lot of helicopter work on the current contract. He then promised that the base price for all of the helicopter blocks would be a certain amount. I'm not going to post the amount, because I don't like to post planter prices publicly. But let me confirm that it was significantly higher than the same base price for all other similar blocks that are not going to be helicopter access. He knows that we, as planters, make less money on helicopter blocks due to all the inefficiency and waiting, and by setting higher prices for these blocks, he is keeping the potential daily earnings fair and consistent throughout all blocks on the contract.


Better Pre-Viewing by Foresters

I recently viewed a pair of contracts tendered by the MOFLNRO. The contract documents posted on BC Bid did not mention any access problems. My guess is that the foresters may not have known about all of the access problems. But between the two contracts, there were a total of sixteen blocks that were not accessible at the present time. It would have been nice to know this before I wasted my time (and a significant amount of money) attempting to go view them. There was another set of blocks that I viewed in another area, and the forester there had obviously taken the time to go look at the blocks personally, shortly before I did my own viewing. Trees that had fallen across the road had been cut out to permit faster access. Signs had been posted at the entrance to the blocks, confirming that I was in the right place. And the block maps had accurate descriptions on them.

I would love to live in a world where the government agencies (MOFLNRO and BCTS) mandated to their staff to try to attempt to do a viewing before contractors try to look at the blocks. The more information that public bidders have, the more accurate the bids are going to be (which benefits all stakeholders).


Earlier Bid Packages

This isn't always possible due to all manner of reasons that are out of the control of the foresters. But having just done a significant amount of viewing in late August, which I normally do in October and early November, I was shocked at how different the process was. It is SO much easier to get into most blocks in late August and early September, when the temperatures are good and the roads are relatively dry, compared to viewing in October (when snow on the ground is sadly not at all uncommon). The BCTS Vanderhoof office generally puts their bids out earliest each year. They're my favorite area to go viewing, because viewing at that time of year is so much safer than in sub-zero temperatures in late October.

There are many reasons why earlier viewing would be beneficial to all parties, above and beyond the safety and efficiency for the viewers. For companies that want to look at a lot of contracts, the "prime window" between when most contracts come online and when viewing is inadvertently terminated by significant snowfalls is very short, sometimes only three or four weeks. That's not enough time for some companies to look at a dozen different contracts that they might be interested, and even if they do look at them all, they're probably rushing and skipping some of the blocks.

If more jobs came online as early as late August, it would extend the viewing window by another four or five weeks, effectively doubling the amount of time that companies have to examine each contract. What does this mean? In most cases, it means that companies can look at the blocks much more closely. They don't have to skip some of the blocks. They can spend more time walking all over each block, instead of sticking a shovel into the ground twenty feet from the front, and then rushing off to the next block in a cloud of dust. They can examine alternative access options for problematic blocks. All of these things would be better for everyone. Contractors would have more confidence in the bids they submit. Blocks that are bid blind because nobody saw them are usually bid slightly high, to be safe, and if a contractor sees all blocks, this won't be a problem. Foresters can be certain that bidders have more confidence in the project, and won't come complaining to the forester the following May with statements like, "I didn't know the bridge was out; I want more money for this block!" Denied.

Basically, I know that there are a ton of reasons that make it difficult for foresters to have their packages ready this early, but I think it would be of benefit to everyone if more contract tenders came online earlier than October.

[Sunwatersoil]

I enjoy the frog in boiling water analogy. I’ve found people to be better at creating change after an event spurs them to action.

Within the planting industry are company owners waiting until someone folds and goes under?

[jdtesluk]

I'd say no. In reality, we need all the contractors - every one of them, to handle the industry volume. If the industry cannot manage the volume of trees, then future funding for important reforestation programs may disappear. There is fierce competition among them, but beneath there is a growing awareness of the interdependency of contractors in sharing the workforce. Northern contractors in particular are very important because of their role in recruiting and training new workers - low-turnover (vet) companies know this. We simply need a health market where all different business models can survive without having to undercut themselves and others on the bidding floor.

[Sunwatersoil]

You bring up a good point. Even the loss of a small company with a seasons capacity of five million trees would likely not be picked up by other companies without expansion or a new company entering the market.

I’ve heard many good arguments for changing the BC low bid system to something more compatible with planter retention and prices.

Has BCTS made any steps to discussing an alternative system? Have contractors brought any ideas forward?

Is this only an issue with public offering trees or do contractors have similar issues with direct award contracts?

[Cyper]

It's going to be very interesting watching what plays out in the bidding for spring 2019. With tree volumes increasing, the competition for planters will intensify. There are already Forest Enhancement Society funded forest fire blocks being advertised, at least 4 million trees that I've seen recently. If the big northern contractors don't up their bids and pay higher wages, they'll find that the southern interior companies will be aggressively recruiting every experienced planter they can, leaving the northern companies to hire even more rookies. Given the increasing minimum wage, this will prove much more expensive than in the past.

The cost of doing business is rapidly going up. Obviously fuel, food, accommodation and now payroll costs as well what with CPP going up and BC medical now falling to contractors to pay. The WFCA is urging its members to bid higher but unfortunately they do not represent nearly all of the contractors in western Canada. I'd guess that well under 50% of the tree planted are done by WFCA contractors.

Sure BC government work is largely low bidder wins. BCTS has instituted a contractor rating system that can provide up to a 7% advantage to higher rated companies, but this system is shrouded in secrecy (trust BCTS to do that) and so far appears to be largely ineffective. Strangely enough they allow some of their foresters to opt out of the program!

However a big part of the problem for low pricing comes directly from the private direct award sector where logging companies negotiate prices directly with planting contractors. The carrot of course is guaranteed work that isn't just for this one season, but if the prices stay nice and "reasonable", then the contractor can expect to be back year after year. What this appears to have done is to set the bar low. Contractors are sacrificing higher prices for stability. If the numbers were available it would become obvious that the direct award prices are now most likely lower than those going to advertised government contracts. This is a sad state of affairs and must change. The real gravy will be in securing these FES and other government funded contracts at premium prices. It will be good for both contractors and planters. Those contractors that are so full of bargain direct award contracts will be left behind in the pricing, too busy to pick up the new carbon initiative work.

[jdtesluk]

Interesting take Cyper...

Your analysis about aggressive recruitment of vets, and cost of rookies is certainly one for companies to consider.

As for your analysis of the trees, I would add some context there...... I would estimate at least 60% of the trees are done by WFCA contractors. I confine this to the BC picture only though, and if you mean to include Alberta then yes you are likely correct sir. In the past it has been as much as 80% I believe. That is just off the top of my head, but I consider the inclusion of major operators such as Summit, Brinkman, Spectrum, Folklore, Dynamic (5 of the 7 largest in my estimation), and many medium-large operators like Zanzibar, A&G, and Timberline... Add to that several non-members attended the conference last week, and many more remain tapped into the discussions. Of course, the WFCA does not issue directives regarding bidding, and does not tell its members what to do. It facilitates discussions of market conditions, and hosts discussions where individuals make suggestions with the hope that individual contractors will tend toward behavior that it in everyone's best interests....but there is no more of a block movement in pricing among members than there is among non-members. At least that's how I see it. I only mention this to indicate that the direction and action of the WFCA is still driven by a substantial portion of the industry, and now shares support from the Consultant Foresters of BC.

Your last part about security and prices for long-term work is particularly interesting....I consider the year-to-year plays that companies make when they go into a season of work, anticipating extra trees being available for good prices later....I have seen some contractors do VERY nicely with that strategy. It is not without risk however, as you put your capacity and planning in the lurch of such a wager, and must then be able to secure the staff to manage the job. Still, the picture is very interesting when we think of longer-time frame "gambling" with the aspiration of picking up better-priced work as prices rise in years coming...,, truly interesting to ponder.

I see two particular forms of risk to ponder (although there are many)....A) the risk of committing to a lot of work early, and locking into rates that will inhibit the capacity to match market rates for labor, should they rise.
B) the risk of waiting to get work, and not having all facets of the operation locked down for effective planning (i.e. training of staff)

It's truly hard to say if the scope of change will be radical or incremental. The key thing here is that we have never seen conditions like before. Ever. A legislated rise in min-wage (nearly 40% over 5 years), combined with a substantial rise in volume. It will be interesting....of that I am sure.

[Scooter]

If the big northern contractors don't up their bids and pay higher wages, they'll find that the southern interior companies will be aggressively recruiting every experienced planter they can, leaving the northern companies to hire even more rookies.

I'd like to offer two points to consider with respect to the above:

1. The number of job openings at those southern Interior companies is somewhat limited. If there are, say, 300 openings in any given year for "new" planters into those companies, it doesn't matter how badly northern planters want to move down to those southern companies. There will only be a talent drain of 300 people from the north. So in other words, the relative size of the two segments of the industry is such that this is less of a problem for northern contractors than one might initially imagine.

2. There is increasing awareness among northern planters of two things: (1) that southern companies paying higher prices do exist, which is negative for northern employers; and (2) that the cost of paying for both camp costs (motel charges) plus food is significantly higher than paying for just camp costs in a northern bush camp. I've seen a big jump in the past two years of planters who have been able to secure spots at motel shows for these small southern Interior companies, and then decided that they'd rather live in a planting camp where the costs are lower and there's no headache of making your own meals. Also, many planters also realize that the social atmosphere in a planting camp is more suited for meeting and interacting with a lot of people than living in a motel, with a smaller crew.

So basically, I think all of the counter-balancing forces are working to create an overall equilibrium in terms of talent drain.

[Scooter]

Those contractors that are so full of bargain direct award contracts will be left behind in the pricing, too busy to pick up the new carbon initiative work.

I think there is potential right now for an interesting situation: contractors who are "full" of direct award work have not necessarily yet accepted those trees. Smart contractors will consider putting in high bids for publicly-tendered work, and if they don't get any, no problem, they fall back onto their direct award work. But if they happen to get a nice juicy job, they have the option to drop work that is direct award.

I think at this point, the people who should be most worried should be the foresters at private mills. If they're paying a decent price for their direct award work, they shouldn't have any problem. But if they've been paying sub-par pricing in the past few years because they had a contractor over a barrel, then they may be in for a surprise.

[Scooter]

Here's another short essay, this time about Danger Tree Assessment and mitigation in wildfire-damaged stands:

http://jonathan-scooter-clark.blogspot. ... -fire.html

The end conclusion of that post is that I believe the government agencies tendering tree planting contracts should oversee DTA assessment and mitigation themselves, through a separate sub-contracting process, rather than leaving assessment and mitigation in the hands of the planting contractors. I feel that there is a potential conflict of interest by asking a planting contractor (who "won" a job through a low bid submission) to undertake responsibility for a cost activity which has a great deal of uncertainty with respect to how much falling needs to be done in any particular stand, particularly when it is the safety of the planters which potentially suffers if a contractor [inevitably] tries to cut corners.

[Tnalp]

good read Scooter.
Also a Certified /Qualified person can train planters to be deemed "qualified" to make assessment calls in the field so as to have them be somewhat accountable as well.

[Scooter]

Also a Certified /Qualified person can train planters to be deemed "qualified" to make assessment calls in the field so as to have them be somewhat accountable as well.

That's a good point. I didn't bring that up because I've always looked at that as something that a DTA person would probably train the foremen or crew bosses to do, rather than expecting the planters to take on that responsibility. But if planters knew what to look for, they could certainly "collect field data" in their own pieces, and pass that information on to the official DTA person.


Subscribing to Replies

On a completely separate note, if anyone wants to keep on top of discussions in this particular topic (since the annual bid results are always a popular one), it's possible. You can "subscribe" to the topic so that any time a new post is made, the board sends you an email to notify you. You just go down to the bottom of the topic and just to the right of the "post reply" button, there is a "topic tools" menu. The top choice in that drop-down menu is "subscribe topic." If you click that, you'll be emailed each time a new reply gets posted in this topic.

[jdtesluk]

I think at this point, the people who should be most worried should be the foresters at private mills. If they're paying a decent price for their direct award work, they shouldn't have any problem. But if they've been paying sub-par pricing in the past few years because they had a contractor over a barrel, then they may be in for a surprise.

I think that is one of the most interesting ideas yet (speculation/prediction/analysis).

Coming from someone so well-versed in the bidding and award systems, it is particularly compelling.

[Cyper]

The talent drain from north to south will only increase as the next few years of planting unfold. Yes there's likely to be an increase in volume both north and south as the fires get planted. But where will the experienced planters want to be? It's pretty obvious that they'll go where the money is. If that follows the current pattern, the migration south will increase as there will be more trees available to plant south of the 52nd parallel. I still maintain that the only way northern contractors will fill the vacancies created by the disappearing vets, will be to hire and train more rookies. A more and more expensive proposition as the minimum wage increases.

It would be interesting to conduct a poll to see how many experienced planters prefer bush camps to motel/condo living. I can see partying rookies really digging camps but the older and more experienced one gets, the less tents and camp life appeal.

The first bids for recent forest fire planting will open late this month. It will be very interesting to see if contractors raise prices. To some extent planting these fires and dealing with the Danger Tree Assessment will be a new thing for many, so there should be a wide range of bids. Unfortunately MOFL in their wisdom are asking for very large bid deposits (upwards of $50,000) along with the attendant threats of future disqualification from bidding and possible legal action if contractors don't accept work they are the low bidder on. It's a bad system when contractors are strongly discouraged from dropping work they underbid possibly due to inexperience in these types of projects.

[Scooter]

... MOFL in their wisdom are asking for very large bid deposits (upwards of $50,000)

If anyone has a bid deposit under $50k on either of those jobs, that would presume a bid price of less than approximately 45 cents per tree for the 002 contract, and less than approximately 41 cents per tree for the 001 contract. Given historical prices for this type of work, plus the specific conditions of the contracts, I'm curious to calculate what the deposits will be for any company submitting a bid.

Given the potential incremental difficulty of sourcing labour this year, which could lead to contract defaults, this may have been a very astute move on the part of the Ministry.

[jlipton]

""The talent drain from north to south will only increase as the next few years of planting unfold. Yes there's likely to be an increase in volume both north and south as the fires get planted. But where will the experienced planters want to be? It's pretty obvious that they'll go where the money is. If that follows the current pattern, the migration south will increase as there will be more trees available to plant south of the 52nd parallel. I still maintain that the only way northern contractors will fill the vacancies created by the disappearing vets, will be to hire and train more rookies. A more and more expensive proposition as the minimum wage increases.""

Cyber. You sound like a company owner which is desperately hoping to convince us that everything in the south is just peaches and cream. If you're a planter (do you plant in the southern part of the province?) why would you want to brag about prices being better? It will just attract more unskilled northern 'vets' to the south where the labor supply is already driving prices down too much. To me it sounds like prices have been going up this year in northern BC but in Merritt we saw price CUTS. The last thing we need is more planters moving south because of promises of big prices that are getting worse not better.
Jonas

[jdtesluk]

This is an interesting conversation.

We might consider not only worker migration, but also potential contractor migration.
If the bidding (and contract price) landscape changes in a way that levels things off between regions and different types of companies, one may think there would be potential for contractors exploring new terrain.
Just throwing it out there. And both Cyber and jlipton raise some valid points to consider....perhaps there could be movement in both directions for both workers and contractors....a reconfiguration of the contract landscape, so to speak.

A related point >> I often think workers are missing the bigger picture when they pigeon-hole companies as good just because they operate in the south, or bad just because they operate in the north....I have seen them all and I can say for certain nothing is that clear. I have seen nearly bug-free cream in Ft St James, and slashy fly-infested rock piles in the Kootenays. Yes, money is the primary focus of workers....but consistent organization, solid camps, respectful treatment, excellent food, long season....these also matter and they are not exclusive to a line south of Williams Lake. Add a few pennies to some of the northern jobs, and the existing appeal becomes even stronger.

I doubt change will occur in a singular direction or form, and there will certainly be faster changes in some spots, and some mistakes made along the way. However, I am optimistic about planting over the next few years, and the potential conditions and rewards for workers. I'm not saying you'll all have jetpacks and pool-parties....but I can see a significant uptick that could make the industry generally more attractive, and help cover some of that ground it lost against inflation and other jobs over the past decade.

[Scooter]

Yes there's likely to be an increase in volume both north and south as the fires get planted.

It's interesting that some recent data about fire devastation for licensees apparently listed numbers of hectares of licensee obligations for Quesnel, Williams Lake, 100 Mile House, and Kamloops. The vast majority was in the north. I didn't see this directly, by the way, but I'll ask for a copy so I have better information. And this is only licensee obligations, not government planning and obligations (which is presumably going to be a lot bigger?). Anyway, from the sounds of the data for those four regions, the vast majority of the required work will be in Quesnel and Williams Lake.

So maybe there WILL be a migration of workers. And maybe it will be those southern companies marching northward, following the money.

[jdtesluk]

A certain company starting with "Z" went up to Quesnel nearly 15 years ago, and lots of people scratched their heads.
They're still there, and have done just fine. That line that runs east-west through Bill's puddle.....it's an imaginary line!

[Scooter]

I would have said that the line would be just south of Kamloops. But agreed, that's somewhat imaginary.

I seem to recall that Evergreen worked in Quesnel a few years ago. And someone on my coastal crew saw a Celtic truck in Comox last week.

[jdtesluk]

Yes on the Evergreen. I think the Celtic truck is a local resident, not contracting. I saw it too. Small world

The geography of the industry is interesting indeed. How about NGR working in Kimberley 10 years ago, and Summit working in Lake Cowichan?

Of course part of where workers migrate also has to do with seeking a longer season with coastal companies that also have interior jobs. The concentration of rookies in the north is heavily invested in the huge bump of production up there in the summer (non-university) months, and the general tendency for northern land to be easier to learn in. Yes, there are some harder specs up there (east of Bear Lake for example). However, on average, a rookie can learn the ropes easier doing all-pine or all-spruce plants on flattish terrain than they can packing 4 species in the Selkirks or Monashees. That part likely won't turn upside down overnight. However, as (and if) low-turnover companies take on that task of hiring more rookies, I can see them being tempted to take on a few more northern jobs....maybe not too far north, but "northish" perhaps. And who knows? Ostensibly, if prices rise and companies have increasing success in retention of vets, maybe some Northern operators could explore opportunities in more technical terrain with select crews?

I am certainly speculating wildly here, but I see a lot of possibilities at play.

[TripleS]

To me it sounds like prices have been going up this year in northern BC but in Merritt we saw price CUTS. The last thing we need is more planters moving south because of promises of big prices that are getting worse not better.

Sorry to hear about your experience in Merritt Jonas, I'm guessing you had the misfortune of working for Leader last Spring. It's a real shame as that was a solid contract for a number of years. My understanding is that Brinky forced Francois' hand, can always count on Brinkman to lead the race to the bottom. There is no way planters should be taking pay cuts.

A certain company starting with "Z" went up to Quesnel nearly 15 years ago, and lots of people scratched their heads.
They're still there, and have done just fine. That line that runs east-west through Bill's puddle.....it's an imaginary line!

I quit working for Zanzi in Quesnel when they cut our prices by 10%, absolute BS. I hope it's better for the planters there now. I agree completely about the line being imaginary, since CR has been making a mess of BCTS Merritt for years, and wasn't NGR in the Kootnays at one point?

[Scooter]

Attached is the WFCA's Summit Report, shared widely among various groups of industry stakeholders.

[Scooter]

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Vanderhoof

Contract: PL20TJE004
Client: BCTS Vanderhoof
Season: Spring 2018
# of Trees: 1,080,000
Option-To-Renew: No
Left On The Table: 20.4% !!

Here are the first public tender results of the fall 2018 viewing season. Seneca obviously is not a part of the WFCA and hasn't been paying attention to the pricing crisis which has been building up in our industry. Someone ought to drop them a line, and point out that public information like this will add to their recruiting challenges in the spring. If they missed it, maybe they should read this post:
http://jonathan-scooter-clark.blogspot. ... -tree.html

If anyone wants to discuss bid pricing and doesn't have an account here, but has an account on Facebook, here's a permalink option:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/5890968 ... 448407261/


Obviously, as this is the first public bid of the season, Seneca is the current holder of the "worst % left on the table" award for 2019 bids. I suspect they'll hold this one for some time.

These bid prices include the cost of shipping trees.

I'd like to commend Coast Range, Blue Collar, and Summit for their restraint on not chasing after low-priced trees going into a season when volumes are probably going to be more than the industry can handle.

I'll be posting results for at least two other contracts by tomorrow morning.

01. $308,567 - 28.6 cents/tree - Seneca
02. $371,479 - 34.4 cents/tree - Spectrum
03. $408,104 - 37.8 cents/tree - Celtic
04. $424,204 - 39.3 cents/tree - Folklore
05. $477,630 - 44.2 cents/tree - Coast Range
06. $488,824 - 45.3 cents/tree - Blue Collar
07. $506,390 - 46.9 cents/tree - Summit

[Scooter]

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Kamloops

Contract: PL20DTR001
Client: MOF Kamloops
Season: Spring 2019
# of Trees: 1,195,075
Option-to-Renew: Yes, 3-year
Left on the Table: 15.2%

This contract is almost entirely wildfire reforestation, less some green patches in a few of the blocks. There is one area that currently has no access due to washed out roads; I'm not sure whether helicopters would be needed to complete that portion of the project. In addition, there are five separate areas containing approximately seven blocks (more wildfire) in widely scattered locations from Little Fort all the way down past Cache Creek.

The biggest concern on this contract, in my mind, is how DTA needs to be handled. The Client is also concerned about eliminating any liability for safety issues in this respect.

01. $ 597,292 - 50.0 cents per tree - A&G
02. $ 687,856 - 57.6 cents per tree - Evergreen
03. $ 814,619 - 68.2 cents per tree - Apex
04. $1,195,602 - $1.00 per tree - Celtic
05. $1,210,164 - $1.01 per tree - Zanzibar

[Scooter]

Here are the results for another nearby contract for Planting in Kamloops

Contract: PL20DTR002
Client: MOF Kamloops
Season: Spring 2019
# of Trees: 1,091,760
Option-to-Renew: Yes, 3-year contract
Left on the Table: 2.5%


The blocks on this one are somewhat intermixed with the DTR001 contract. However, there are no outlier blocks on this contract. There are currently two inaccessible areas, although I think that one of the washed out roads (the Scottie Creek washout) will probably be fixed before planting commences.

This one is slightly easier ground than the 001 contract.

01. $513,012 - 47.0 cents - Evergreen
02. $525,898 - 48.2 cents - A&G
03. $565,348 - 51.8 cents - Apex
04. $694,798 - 63.6 cents - Brinkman
05. $724,929 - 66.4 cents - Celtic
06. $726,066 - 66.5 cents - Zanzibar
07. $760,414 - 69.7 cents - Folklore

[Sunwatersoil]

This question is for both Scooter and Jdtesluk with regards to the 2012 WSCA Workers panel.

I’ve been listening to the discussion you both participated in and I’m hearing many of the same issues the industry faces with this coming season. An increase in tree volume, recruitment and retention, and tree prices to name the big ones.

I’ve not been to a conference but are these issues rehashed every year with no noticeable change? Is there something different about this season?

Could this year’s discussion of price increases be solely contributed to the BC medical premiums and the rise of minimum wage?

[jdtesluk]

Fair question. You mention two key cost drivers for contractors: bc med and a rising wage. I see much more than that.
However, for workers, the only thing that really matters is adjustments in tree prices. It is for the contractors to adjust for other things like fuel, accommodation, service costs, and other things that are also going up.

So yes, there are some things different. First of all we have an unprecedented rise in min wage from just 11.35 last year to 15.20 by the year 2021. That sets the basement floor so to speak....the bar minimum that rookies (or any worker can make). That's a 33% increase in just five years. Most people know there are rules around overtime and payment to workers, so we are looking at a situation where a guaranteed minimum day is $180-$195, depending on length of the day (on average through a pay period).

Another factor, we have an increasingly aware workforce that will stand up and go to Labor Relations if they do not receive fair payment. I base this assertion on things I have heard from workers. Some say workers need to be more active in this regard.

There is the increase in volume of work, with sowing requests pushing the industry toward 318-320+ million trees in a few years...that means more work available, and ostensibly less reason for contractors to drop their standards (and prices) to obtain work. I have already heard from several contractors that told licensees to pound sand when the price wasn't good enough. We need more of that too....and we will see it because the cost of operating is rising.

Finally, as this all occurs, we have widespread challenges in recruitment and retention. Many companies, north-south, high turnover-low turnover, have had challenges finding workers. Nobody can pin on thing on it, but as minimum wage rises, there will be a lot of other places where workers can go to make decent money......so contractors are facing a situation where they simply must increase the earnings that workers can make in order to A) meet minimum wage legislation for their slower workers, B) attract and keep workers from going elsewhere to make similar money for working a fraction as hard, and C) to provide workers with a reason to actually produce....I mean to actually pound. It's simple really... if a planter can make $190 +/- for standing around, how much do they need to be able to make to work their butt off in one of the hardest jobs their is. Contractors understand that they have to offer planters more than minimum....much more than minimum ..if they are going to get that production to keep their operation moving.

So, you' re correct in saying that we have heard these things before. However, we have never faced the same economic conditions before. We have never seen volume rise to this level, or min wage rise by this great of a percent, and not at the same time.

I tend toward optimism, and believe that we will see a much better industry for workers to be part of in 2-3 years. It won't happen overnight. There will be some bumps, and it will not happen equally everywhere. There also many different business models out there from 15 person local crews to 350 person mega-corps....they all have to find their way forward in the new market, and that is a challenge because adjusting bidding behavior involves movement of the group. Just one or two cynical or predatory actors can screw it up for everyone, and sometimes a single strategy (i.e. eliminate camp cost) is not necessarily the best for everyone. I think it will be important, for workers and contractors, to be patient. There will be companies that do things differently than others...and there will be some low bids that make people scratch their heads, and overall I I tend to expect a period of chaos before a new norm settles in.

[Cyper]

Does anyone know if the ground is similar in Vanderhoof from 2018 to 2019?

HERE'S ACOMPARISON OF 2018 BIDS TO 2019 BIDS:

2018 2019 UP or DOWN
SENECA $0.316 $0.286 -9.4%
SPECTRUM ------------ $0.344 ------------
CELTIC $0.324 $0.378 16.6%
FOLKLORE $0.280 $0.393 40.3%
COAST RANGE $0.316 $0.442 39.8%
BLUE COLLAR ------------ $0.453 ------------
SUMMIT $0.293 $0.469 60.0%

[Scooter]

And now for something completely different. Some numbers out of Manitoba. I don't know how to find these as they were submitted directly to me by someone else, but they are public information. I suspect that there must be some way to find out information on public/government bids in almost every province.

[Scooter]

This question is for both Scooter and Jdtesluk with regards to the 2012 WSCA Workers panel.

I’ve been listening to the discussion you both participated in and I’m hearing many of the same issues the industry faces with this coming season. An increase in tree volume, recruitment and retention, and tree prices to name the big ones.

I’ve not been to a conference but are these issues rehashed every year with no noticeable change? Is there something different about this season?

Could this year’s discussion of price increases be solely contributed to the BC medical premiums and the rise of minimum wage?

Sunwatersoil, sorry for the delay on replying, really busy these days. I'd say that a couple things stand out in my mind, keeping in mind the context that you were looking at the panel discussion from the fall of 2012, going into the 2013 season:
- Volumes weren't increasing like they are now. They HAD increased from a near-historical low, but weren't expected to be growing significantly in the near future. In contrast, right now, we're looking at significant gains (more than 30 million extra trees in 2020 compared to this year), and possible additional gains in 2021.
- Minimum wage is a big one.
- The general economy is a big one. Even in 2012, people were still cautiously holding their breath about the slow recovery from the 2008 recession. At that point, students still had to search around diligently to find decent summer work. Now, there are so many other jobs available that far fewer people are driven in desperation towards the planting industry.

Also, with oil prices up recently, the oil patch will undoubtedly be heating up again. Even last week, when driving around central Alberta, I was blocked by three separate rig moves, saw a dozen new pipeline construction projects, saw a dozen MTC's with medics sitting at corners (on duty), and ran into hundreds of oil patch pickups. That's a sure sign that prices have risen sufficiently for on-hold projects to start coming online. While I don't think that there's a huge overlap between the workforce demographics for tree planting and for oil patch work, there is unquestionably some overlap. I'd say at least 10-15%, based upon the resumes that I've seen over the past few years (lots of 19-30 year-olds with oilfield experience). And I can think of at least one planter from my camp in 2017 who I lost to the oil patch. There may be more. Money talks, even though the working conditions in the patch may be unpleasant (in different ways from planting).

I found a chart to corroborate point one, from this link: http://www.fgcouncil.bc.ca/FGC-15-16-An ... ec2016.pdf

[Scooter]

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Cranbrook

Contract: PL20TFH002
Client: BCTS Cranbrook
Season: Spring 2019
# of Trees: 704,000
Left on the Table: 13.8%


All relevant contract documents have been attached to this post.

01. $270,811 - 38.5 cents/tree - Zanzibar
02. $308,153 - 43.8 cents/tree - Brinkman
03. $363,658 - 51.7 cents/tree - NGR
04. $403,165 - 57.3 cents/tree - Evergreen
05. $474,668 - 67.4 cents/tree - Celtic

This one is interesting because it appears that the low bidder "jumped the gun." Perhaps Zanzibar should have taken a closer look at a similar contract from last year:
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=66856&p=91415&hili ... 001#p91415

It appears that many companies are [wisely] holding back and not pursuing these first contracts aggressively. My feeling is that this is a wise strategy. There is certainly a feeling that there is more work out there than our sector can currently handle, and eventually a number of firms will have to stop bidding on public work. This has the potential for further increasing bid prices on the contracts that are tendered near the end of this year's viewing/bidding season. Despite the low price submitted by Zanzibar, the mean price of all bidders on this contract (51.7 cents/tree) is significantly (32%) higher than the mean price on the 2017 contract that I linked to above (39.3 cents/tree).

[Cyper]

So if you're happy with making the same money (less after inflation) as you did last year, just hire on with Zanzibar. If you don't mind a teeny little cut in wages Seneca is the one for you. Odd that these companies didn't get the memo about volume going up and so prices as well. Seneca must be disconnected from the WFCA and all of the info they're putting out. Zanzibar on the other hand has been a long term member so must know what's happening? I can only guess that they've suffered a loss of some of their regular work and panicked to replace it. Unfortunately there will always be those contractors who don't see the bigger picture. They don't feel a responsibility to the industry (or their workers) to push prices and wages upwards.

Sadly the bigger picture is easily burred by thinking small and seeing only a little corner of the larger situation. In some ways it's hard to blame these contractors for being parochial, as the business of tree planting, is by nature isolationist. Contractors work in isolation from each other. They have been encouraged by the system to be secretive and competitive. Bid low or go home. Don't dare talk to any of your competitors about pricing or you are breaking the law. Collusion is a very dirty word when it comes to bidding. Some government foresters are so concerned about it that they refuse to release results of bids until after they have a signed contract. Most licensee foresters will not divulge much information at all. Rather than see that releasing bid results would provide unsuccessful contractors with a target to shoot for, thus helping to lower their future bids, they prefer to keep their cards close on principal.

I really hope that Zanzibar and Seneca have not begun another stampede to the bottom. The few other tender results we've seen indicate that most contractors see the opportunity to take advantage of the volume increases. There have already been millions of forest fire trees put up for bid. The tenders that have opened so far for these types of jobs make them the clear choice for planters. Prices for these burns are high. The planting is for the most part very easy. I've always loved planting old forest fire burns. When the dust has settled over winter, there's nothing in the way of making great money.

On another planting website I've seen a Hall of Fame. Perhaps it's time to create a Hall of Shame. Nominations?

[Scooter]

On another planting website I've seen a Hall of Fame. Perhaps it's time to create a Hall of Shame. Nominations?

That's an interesting idea, but let's not jump the gun. Perhaps I'm being an eternal optimist right now, but I feel that a few of these contractors who have left large amounts on the table so far will really regret their bids in another month. There is simply too much work out there, and there are still a lot of bids to be opened. In fact, there are a lot of tenders that haven't even been published yet. By the end of this week, I predict we'll see a flood of new trees being advertised, possibly close to 25 million more. Considering that there were only about 53 million total publicly tendered trees last year, that's encouraging. I may need to start keep a running total on the number of trees tendered along with weighted average low bid and weighted average overall bid prices, for curiousity, and post those numbers here occasionally. I think it would be an interesting set of statistics to follow. The only drawback is that I'm pretty swamped with work for the next four weeks, so that might not happen right away. Here are some overall numbers from last year:

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=66856&start=50#p91895

Also, I'm not sure if a Hall of Shame is completely necessary. I fully intend to put together a very comprehensive report by the first week of January, to give a detailed overview of what the fall bidding results tell us. I'll try to make it as scientific and numbers-based as possible, and let people make their own inferences. I'll include some Top 5 lists: Lowest Bids, Greatest % Left On The Table, etc. I’ll then ensure that the report is shared far and wide among the planter community, and let them make their own decisions.

The Vanderhoof Bid is one that has already stirred a great deal of controversy. I'm tempted to write a very long analysis of the potential ramifications of that bid, but for now, I'll post a Coles Notes version. I'll be up-front here and say that I'm not interested in picking on a specific company; rather, it is the numbers in that specific bid that concern me. It wouldn't matter which companies placed the various bids on that job, the impact is the same.

What I see as the main issue with that bid is that there's a great deal going on behind the scenes, not just the publicly tendered work to consider. I believe I saw data saying that BC would plant approximately 280 million trees this year. I think this was based on sowing requests. I don't know if that includes Alberta nurseries or not. I don't know if there has been any consideration to the fact that a lot of trees grown in BC are shipped to Alberta for planting, and seedlings grown in Alberta are shipped to BC for planting, and it's just a huge mixing pot. I therefore hesitate to throw any definitive numbers out for what I'm about to say, since I don't know what the correct numbers are. But I think it's safe to say that in Western Canada, there are at least 280 million trees to be planted in 2019 (maybe about 75-90m more if Alberta is separate), and the public results that we're looking at might account for say 50-65 million this year. So the public results in this thread will ultimately represent only maybe 20% of the industry-wide total for 2019. The other 80% is all private work for mills/licensees. And that's why that Vanderhoof bid is dangerous. Foresters who do private bids or direct award work all over BC and Alberta are currently negotiating with contractors. Contractors can say "we need 35-40 cents per tree to pay our workers fairly and to be able to sustain future operations as an on-going concern." But the foresters can point to that bid and say, "Thanks for your input, but the market is saying that 28 cents is a fair price. You'll have to lower your price if you want to work for me."

That Vanderhoof bid was incredibly important because it acted as a barometer. Can you imagine if a large number of private licensee foresters used those specific numbers as leverage to keep prices down? If that was the case, and it influenced industry-wide prices by even one cent per tree, that would take a couple million dollars out of our collective pockets. In that sense, I believe that every single company and worker out there has a right to be concerned by that specific bid. As an industry stakeholder, it affects me personally, and it probably affects just about every person reading this, however indirectly.

To be clear, not all foresters are going to use that bid as leverage. Many understand the issues facing our industry, and some are quite sympathetic. I've heard of many who have agreed that our prices can increase.

Looking at it from another angle, some planting contractors are now in a position to tell some of the less flexible licensees to go pound sand up their ass. The fact that some licensees have been in a position for the past decade to tell contractors they'll have to operate at a loss is simply unfathomable. Hopefully, we won't continue seeing that kind of situation for the next several years.

I've talked to several planters who have said that after hiring starts, every time that Seneca puts up a post to hire planters, they're going to post the numbers from that bid, and warn people away. I’ve neither encouraged nor discouraged this idea. However, I think we need to get more clarity about what the rest of the bidding season brings before we get upset at any specific companies. I actually feel slightly bad for Seneca, in a sense. With that bid, they've painted a huge red target on their back. In discussions on facebook, people have suggested that Seneca made a lot of money with their fire-fighting work, and that's why their bid was "ok," because they can afford to bid low now. I suspect that several of Seneca's competitors are probably now thinking about the concept of getting into wildfire suppression work themselves. Why do I say this? Because I know of two companies that have already started the groundwork to do exactly that. If a number of planting contractors know that they can make fat stacks with fire suppression work, that means less fire suppression money for Seneca in the future. The market has a way of balancing itself. If I was a contractor that made a lot of money doing other related silviculture work, such as herbiciding, cone-picking, brushing, or silviculture surveys, I'd be hesitant to indirectly advertise that fact by putting in abnormally low bids on planting work.

I'm going to throw an analogy out right now, since I'm parked in the middle of a windstorm. If you have a stand of trees, the wind doesn't tend to knock them over because they bear the brunt of the wind force as a group, protecting each other as a community. Planting contractors need to think about this. By standing together, they can be a lot stronger.

Ultimately, I'm still optimistic that the results released over the next four weeks will show that 2019 will be the beginning of a recovery for our industry.

[jdtesluk]

Let's also keep in mind, that the gov't bid jobs you see here are only one part (a minority) of the trees that are actually planted.

For workers, the main thing is the price paid to the worker, not the bid price. Yes, there is no magic pot of money where bids go down and prices-to-planter go up. However, after the many visible and invisible factors work out, planters need to pay attention to that all-important bottom line of how much did they make?

Many contractors I spoke to indicated they couldn't care less about what they see on the bid sheets, because most of their work is direct-award or negotiated directly with the client. We don't get to see those negotiations on the internet, but they may arguably be more influential on worker earnings than anything. It is well known that some contractors rely on gov't bid work just to fill in their schedule, and are willing to drop their prices a bit to get it, especially if timing and geography work nicely with what they already have.

I am neither defending or criticizing any of the bids shown thus far. I am simply pointing out there is a broader context for understanding what changes may actually be happening. I agree with pretty much everything Scooter just wrote there. I like the windfirm analogy.

Key thing here though, is the difficulty of tracking how much workers make. That has always been tricky. There are two sources in general....1) survey responses....these are unreliable when dealing with things like exact earnings. Social indicators such as job satisfaction or similar phenomena are more readily measurable, but specific interval data like $-per-day need to be explicitly laid out, and a large defensible sample. We don't have that right now. 2) is a formula of dividing total industry payroll by the number of sowing requests....again imperfect, but perhaps close to reliable when looked at over time. The problem is that is gives a total-tree price, and not a wage or a planter price. Many things are bundled into that number (including non-planting staff payroll). Some people point out the f-layer issue, but that means pretty much nothing when looking at the past 15 years of data because f-layer swept through the industry about 15-20 years ago. This number at least gives some indicator of how much money per tree is being obtained by contractors and devoted to their payroll. I will have some of that data to share soon in a broader report on worker recruitment and retention.

[Scooter]

The only drawback is that I'm pretty swamped with work for the next four weeks, so that might not happen right away.

Screw it, sometimes you have to make time. Here are some numbers to date. Remember that this is still VERY early in the game, although we may see numbers from up to four more jobs by the end of this week.


Total Trees Advertised (so far): 25,513,119 (compared to about 52.8 million in full-season 2018)
Average LOW BID price on paper: 41.5 cents per tree (compared to about 32.0 cents in 2018)
Average overall bid price, all contracts: 56.0 cents per tree (compared to about 38.9 cents in 2018)

These are weighted averages based upon tree counts, not just a simple average of each contract having an equal weighting.

So far, average low bids have increased by 30%, and average overall bids have increased by 44%, when compared to overall 2018 data. Of course, the contracts so far this year have been more technical, so those absolute numbers will probably decrease slightly over the next few weeks once a few easy contracts open up. And as for total number of trees, it's not a good comparison side-by-side, but it's useful to see how close we're getting to last year's numbers (and it will be a good comparison at the end of the viewing season).

I've attached a PDF to this post, which is a PDF print of the spreadsheet used to calculate the data so far. As promised, I'll try to update this approximately once per week for the next few weeks.

[jdtesluk]

This is the sign our ancestors had spoken of.

[Scooter]

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Golden/Revelstoke/Shuswap

Contract: PL20TKR003
Client: BCTS Vernon
# of Trees: 359,149
Season: Spring 2019
Option-to-Renew: No
Left on the Table: 26.8%

This one will open a lot of eyes, and initiate a lot of questions. Why was Zanzibar ineligible? Forgot to sign the bid? Disqualified for dropping the Creston bid without subsequently providing sufficient proof of having come up with a plan to address capacity issues? I suspect more likely the former. Regardless, it looks like Brinkman wins the prize here. And Celtic must be amused to think that if Brinkman had screwed up something in the paperwork, they would have gotten the contract at close to ninety cents per tree.

It is also obvious that after having left a significant on the table after their first bid, Seneca is being prudently cautious.

In general news, since this is a small number of trees, it only brings the overall weighted average bid price for all trees thus far to 57.7 cents. That's still very high compared to the past several years. Also, due to a flood of new contracts being announced today, we're up to 42.3 million trees being proposed for public tender so far this year (not all have been published yet), which is a huge jump from what I knew of last night. I'll publish more details in a revised spreadsheet at the end of this week.

01. $225,768 - 62.9 cents/tree - Zanzibar (ineligible)
02. $286,327 - 79.7 cents/tree - Brinkman
03. $321,130 - 89.4 cents/tree - Celtic
04. $411,133 - $1.14 per tree - Seneca

[Cyper]

There's little to no chance that Zanzibar would drop the Cranbrook contract and thus be ineligible. The Golden bid required that foremen's resumes and a work history and declaration be included with the bid. So perhaps they forgot one of those things or didn't sign them. They may even have forgotten to fill in the column identifying the biogeoclimatic subzone that each of their planting contracts from the last three years occupied. Good thing they were ineligible or that would have been 27% left on the table. What's up with Zanzibar? Are they under new management?

[Scooter]

Here are the results for another contract for Planting in Revelstoke/Shuswap/Golden

Contract: PL20TKR002
Client: BCTS Nelson
# of Trees: 715,592
Season: Spring 2019
Left on the Table: 13.6%

The percentages being left on the table have been quite high thus far this year.

I guess this also answers the previous question re. Zanzibar. Their ineligibility for the previous contract obviously must have just been due to a clerical error. It happens.

01. $429,176 - 60.0 cents/tree - Fireweed Mountain
02. $487,477 - 68.1 cents/tree - Evergreen
03. $522,709 - 73.0 cents/tree - Zanzibar
04. $555,795 - 77.7 cents/tree - Raven Ventures
05. $653,158 - 91.3 cents/tree - Brinkman
06. $687,867 - 96.1 cents/tree - Celtic
07. $802,276 - $1.12 per tree - Seneca


Running totals for the season:

Overall weighted average low bid: 45.6 cents/tree
Overall weighted awarded bid: 48.8 cents/tree
Overall weighted average bid, all jobs: 61.7 cents/tree

Total Trees Decided: 5,145,576
Total Trees in Public Tenders to Date: 42,334,675

One Year Ago:

Overall weighted average low bid: 32.0 cents/tree
Overall weighted average bid, all jobs: 38.9 cents/tree
Total Trees in Public Tenders to Date: 53,827,000


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

[jdtesluk]

Fireweed is locally based, so they have a leg up in Revelstoke and know the area as well as anyone.
Zanzibar remains under the same management as before. I don't know who submits the bid, but ownership is the same.

[Sunwatersoil]

I’d like to thank Scooter and Jdtesluk for your optimism in the wake of the new developments affecting the industry. I believe it’s easy to fall prey to the idea that the bottom line and tree price would drop with the new changes.

I know a number of planters use this form to make informed decisions and it’s encouraging to see that many bids are higher than past years. It’s only a matter of time till the companies who bid too low are at seasons capacity and with the increase in public tree volume the bid tree price should increase.

Could we be in a waiting game where companies are trying to outlast eachother and not fill up their seasons capacity too early?

[mwainwright]

Yes, good work fellas. You guys are really doing a fantastic job with all this data collection and analysis. This is the most interesting this thread has been in a few years. I’m feeling optimistic about the next few years.

[Scooter]

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Kamloops

Contract: PL20FOR002
Client: Forsite Consultants Ltd.
Season: Spring 2019
# of Trees: 1,405,253
Left on the Table: 10.2%

This is another contract in a very tight area near Cache Creek, with a number of blocks up the Scottie FSR. That area, from about 20km west of Cache Creek to about 50km east, and mostly slightly north of Cache Creek in latitude, is going to feature a frenzy of planting in 2019 and 2020 (due to the wildfires). While I would be interested in being a part of such a big concentration of wildfire restoration work, I'd also be more than slightly concerned about driving up and down that tight road with at least half a dozen companies planting in the area. There are two major Forsite contracts there, two major MOF Kamloops projects, and presumably work for West Fraser and possibly Tolko too. And there are a lot of old Ainsworth blocks in that area too, which I believe are now the responsibility of West Fraser. And finally, there's a possibility that BCTS Kamloops may have some work in that area too.

The big challenge with this contract will be DTA work (Danger Tree Assessment). There's a lot of mature burned timber in this area, which will require assessment and, in many cases, mitigation (NWZ's in some cases, significant falling in others). I wrote a post about post-wildfire DTA a month or so ago, and this entire area is really the best example of the type of reforestation work that concerns me. By the way, here's a link to that post: https://jonathan-scooter-clark.blogspot ... -fire.html

In general, this area burned fairly hot. Organics have been burned away in a lot of blocks, and exposed soil is common in many blocks. Mature trees that burned (which is all of them) are, almost without exception, still standing, although I expect that the winter will knock down some of them, and restrict quick travel through the blocks in limited areas.

Some of the blocks on this contract are flat and beautiful, and some are fairly steep. Overall, it's an interesting mix. There will be slow ground and fast ground.

01. $680,142 - 48.4 cents/tree - Dynamic
02. $749,635 - 53.3 cents/tree - Leader
03. $758,114 - 53.9 cents/tree - Apex
04. $806,448 - 57.4 cents/tree - Zanzibar
05. $830,648 - 59.1 cents/tree - Folklore
06. $846,524 - 60.2 cents/tree - Brinkman
07. $871,257 - 62.0 cents/tree - A&G
08. $881,093 - 62.7 cents/tree - Evergreen
09. $886,012 - 63.0 cents/tree - Celtic

[Scooter]

YTD Viewing/Bidding Season Stats, Week Ending October 19th, 2018


Running totals for this season:

Overall weighted average low bid: 46.2 cents/tree
Overall weighted average awarded bid: 48.7 cents/tree
Overall weighted average including all bids, all jobs: 60.6 cents/tree

Total Trees Known/Decided So Far: 6,550,829
Total Trees in Public Tenders to Date: 42,954,175

One Year Ago:

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


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

As can be seen, bids so far are up about 50% from a year ago.

Please feel free to share this information with Foresters throughout western Canada (and planting company owners who may not follow this forum regularly). A lot of negotiations are ongoing at the present time with private licensees and mills, and I think that it will be useful context for some of them to see where the market sits at present.

I'm aware of a small number of well-known planting contractors who are already "full" for 2019 work, and unable to continue bidding. There is no doubt that the amount of work still to be awarded will pose a challenge with respect to industry capacity in 2019, especially in light of the first significant hints of a labour crunch that we saw in 2018. Most of the contractors that had issues meeting contractual obligations in 2018 are very gun-shy right now about over-committing.


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

[Sunwatersoil]

Scooter, these bids seem really high, with increases of more than fifty percent over last year. Are the contracts harder? If so, how much of those increases is due to difficult contracts, and how much is due to companies just asking for higher prices?

[Scooter]

That's a really good question, and one I've been thinking about for the past several days. I've been trying to figure out a way to numerically quantify the increase as having two components: what part of the increase is higher because the contracts opened (so far) are tougher than the average from last season, and what part of the increase is due to the contractors simply needing higher prices in order to sustain operations and retain a workforce? I think that once we see numbers for four or five more contracts, I'll be able to break that out by comparing what I've seen on various contracts last year vs this year (I view a very large number of blocks). So once we hit several contracts that I feel are very similar ground to the same contracts last year, then any year-to-year difference in those specific contracts should theoretically be a general market adjustment, rather than a contract-specific increase.

If I were to venture a guess right now, I'd say that 40% of the approximate 50% increase so far is attributable to a general need for bids to be higher. The other 10% might be due to tougher contracts. The Revelstoke and Golden work usually tend to be in the upper range of bids, so maybe those two are skewing the bias upward slightly. There are two jobs opening this week (Prince George and Vanderhoof) in what is traditionally lower-priced area, but I'll be quite honest - I don't think those two jobs are going to drop the average bid much from where it sits now. Prices need to be much higher for the industry to get through the next three years, and I firmly believe that the first half dozen bids that have been released are not out-of-line. I don't think at all that there will be a marked decrease in the average bid price for the season from where it currently sits. If I was a forester with a contract that won't be opened until the end of the pack, I'd be starting to sweat about my budget right now.

But what do I know? I'm just an average guy who likes the smell of root beer, and the sounds of wind and waterfalls.

[Scooter]

Also, here's some context for you:

From September 2011 to today, the standard price of lumber rose from $211.10 to $325.90 (USD/1000 board feet): An increase of 54.4%

From September 2011 to the present, the minimum wage in BC went from $8.25 per hour to $13.85 per hour: An increase of 58.3%

In light of that, and considering that planting prices haven't really increased in a lot of areas since 2011, an increase in average bids from 38.9 to 60.6 cents (increase of 55.8%) doesn't seem all that out-of-line anymore.

And to be clear, there are organizations that have basically held the planting prices at the same level since 2011. In fact, I was seeing better prices in 2003 than I am now. I don't think I'm being unrealistic in suggesting that it's time for change. Tape can only hold a wet package together for so long.

[jdtesluk]

Tape can only hold a wet package together for so long.

gold

[TripleS]

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?