2021 Public Bid Results

[Scooter]

This will be the sub-forum for discussing 2021 public bid results.

If you want to book mark the public bids part of the forums, you can also use this shortcut:

www.replant.ca/publicbids

[Scooter]

Technically, part of this bid is for Fall 2020 work, not for 2021. But since we're into September and Viewing Season is starting for 2021, and since this work includes a lot of spring trees too, I'm including it this topic instead of 2020.

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

Contract: PL21TCG040
Client: BCTS Campbell River
# of Trees: 1,164,290
Opened: August 11th, 2020
Contractor Rating System: Yes
Left on the Table: 1.3%

This was a very nice, tightly bid contract. I've ranked the bidders by the dollar amount of their bid, as usual, but will make notes when the Contractor Rating System changes the order of the bid ranking. On this contract, the post-CRS bid ranking order was (low to high) Evergreen, Zanzibar, Leader, Timberline, as indicated by BCTS.

This contract is broken down into 798,570 fall 2020 trees, and 365,672 spring 2021 trees. It also includes 26k tea-bags in the fall, and 148k teabags plus 11k cones in the spring.

The per tree prices might seem low to some, especially when we consider that a lot of much easier spring 2020 Interior ground (without teabags) will probably go for the same prices. This is not unexpected, and illustrates the large gap that has developed between coastal versus Interior ground. That gap is entirely due to the supply/demand labour imbalance - tons of planters chasing a very small amount of coastal work (oversupply of labour), versus an industry-wide challenge to try to recruit enough workers to get the Interior work completed in the short Spring window (shortage of labour).

Incidentally, Zanzibar will be planting this contract.

01. $712,580 - 62.3 cents/tree - Evergreen
02. $720,128 - 63.0 cents/tree - Leader
03. $721,966 - 63.1 cents/tree - Zanzibar
04. $777,112 - 68.0 cents/tree - Timberline

[Cyper]

From what I hear Evergreen dropped this contract claiming too much work in that time frame.
Because of the contractor rating system Zanzibar jumped over Leader into 2nd place and so was awarded the job.

If you think 63 cents is low, that really shows how times have changed on the coast. This job usually goes for around 58 cents before adjustments.

If you adjust this bid and remove all of the t-bags, cones, cages and man days (their archaic term not mine), you end up with an adjusted tree price of 58.7 cents. So really, this bid is slightly higher than those of the past 5 or 6 years.

Although this in some people's eyes seems low due to, as Scooter point out, supply and demand, it will no doubt be better money that most of the low bid south Island work that Mosaic has recently awarded to the usual suspects. Zanzibar will no doubt see this as an upgrade from that very work, of which they recently have had lots.

[Scooter]

and man days (their archaic term not mine),

Agreed. I prefer to use the term person-days. It would be great if BCTS and the FLNRO staff would update this terminology in any contract documentation.

[Scooter]

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Port Alberni

Contract: PL21TCD038
Client: BCTS Port Alberni
# of Trees: 313,000
Opened: August 12, 2020
Contractor Rating System: Yes
Left on the Table: 42.7%

I believe that Leader ended up being awarded this tender. I also think that Evergreen technically jumped into 4th place ahead of Fieldstone due to the Contractor Rating System.

01. $157,731 - 50.3 cents/tree - Osprey
02. $225,028 - 71.9 cents/tree - Leader
03. $235,730 - 75.3 cents/tree - Sitka
04. $262,440 - 83.8 cents/tree - Fieldstone
05. $263,793 - 84.3 cents/tree - Evergreen

[Cyper]

Great to see the nefarious Osprey either drop or get disqualified from this job.
Sad to see Leader take this from the more local crew of Sitka.
In the bigger picture it's unfortunate to see Leader entering the Vancouver Island market.
Although they've been bidding there for a while, I think this is their first success or at least their first win.
Whether it's a success or not will depend on what Mother Nature dishes out this fall.
So far it's been either too hot, too smoky, very windy or increasingly rainy.

Heaven knows there's already enough competition on the Island.
It's become some contractors' stable for assembling planters so they can stock their interior crews.
They can make so much money in the interior that they don't have to make anything on their coast work.

[Scooter]

Before things get too busy, I suppose that I should write up my annual State Of The Industry post. I'll try to tackle that within the next week, when I have time.

Edit: Took a while to get to this: https://jonathan-scooter-clark.blogspot ... -2021.html

In the meantime, an issue that has been brought up by our industry repeatedly in the past several years has been the major concern about ATV safety on deactivated or more importantly, reclaimed roads. Some of these roads are needed in order to move trees into blocks being planted, and when a road has been reclaimed properly, it's very difficult to get a quad into the block. There have been a number of serious injuries at various planting companies over the last decade, and there exists a real risk of an eventual fatality at some point in the future.

Some companies have been trying to leave temporary quad trails until planting is complete. This may be a better strategy than leaving a road wide open (from the regulatory point of view, not from planters' point of view). We understand that there are requirements and desires to restrict public access, but that needs to be balanced against worker safety. If a company reclaims a road and then leaves a quad trail for the planters, this is still helpful! It keeps full-size vehicles belonging to public off the roads, but allows workers to enter the blocks safely. After the planting is complete, it is very quick to "finish the job" and reclaim the quad trail (this work can even be done with a mini-excavator rather than a full-size machine, for significant cost savings on the machine hours and on the floats). A mill can even reclaim a road, leave a quad trail, but block off the head of the quad trail until a week before the planters arrive, if they really want to minimize access.

Anyway, here's block that I was looking at yesterday, and I felt that I should give West Fraser Hinton a shout-out for putting the safety of the planters first. Other operations should take note of this approach:

[jdtesluk]

Wow, it's like they groomed it to corduroy like a race track.
This photo should be used an example to show other licensees as an example of best practices. Certainly the site conditions supported an ideal road here, but it provides a good example nonetheless of change in the right direction.

I wonder if there is some technique that could be used for temporary bridging of waterbars in steeper (and coastal) areas, such as removable culverts with a decking or soil overlap, or something easily removed by a smaller machine (but not makeshift bridges). Some of the parties directly involved in how roads are deactivated lack understanding of the both the demands of getting in trees, and the vulnerability of workers when they don't have good access.

[Scooter]

I think that a big problem is cost. The roads are reclaimed with heavy machines, which have a run rate of a few hundred dollars per hour. And floating full-sized excavators requires a low-bed and tractor, so unless the blocks are close enough that you can walk the machine between them, you're looking at float costs of perhaps upwards of a thousand dollars per move. I understand why the licensees are reluctant to have a situation whereby they have to bring a big machine back to "finish the job" of road reclamation after the planters are done.

If a road like the photo above can be left in a reclaimed road, then the clean-up work can legitimately be done with a smaller machine. Here's an example:
https://kubota.ca/en/products/power-equ ... tors/kx040

Something like that is cheaper to operate, fine for a small job like pulling debris into that 4-foot quad strip, and light enough to move around on a two-axle trailer behind a heavy pickup.

[YellowCedar]

I would like to comment on the BCTS Campbell River contract (and all bidding practices on the Coast for that matter): 63 cents per tree is a terrible price for the BCTS CR contract. The fall portion of the contract is 795,000 trees on very challenging old growth planting: steep to very steep blocks with cliffs, brutal slash and disheartening drives. Furthermore, of the 795K, 245,000 trees are heli blocks and road access blocks where trees must get flown in (planters walk), AND 90K are barge access trees. These are substantial costs. And at 63 cents there seems to be no margin for risk especially considering the quantity of heli (seems like a bad fall to try to cut the risk out of bids with heli with all that smoke!).

63 cents per tree BUYS this contract. So either the winning bidder (in this case Leader, Evergreen and Zanzibar could've taken this job since their bids were so close) will make zero money on this contract--Or the planters will suffer tremendously.

This seems like very poor business practices to me. How can contractors on the Coast come to an agreement that this practice of buying contracts must
end?

[jdtesluk]

How can contractors on the Coast come to an agreement that this practice of buying contracts must
end?

Just selecting that one snippet there, as in it lies much of the problem. Unfortunate or not, there can be no agreements made among competing parties on bids. None. Licensees start to shoot flames out of their noses at even the merest hint of such things, as this wanders into the realm of collusion, and our anti-combines legislation carries incredibly harsh penalties for such things. Even without naming prices, collusion can be asserted, say if there is a agreement to not bid on certain jobs. So the industry (coastal in particular) is stuck with this problem and they've been struggling with it for decades. Apologies if that's obvious, and perhaps its already known. However, I really found it surprising when I first learned how punitive these penalties can be. We're talking up to14 yrs jail or up to $25 million in fines. If only there were penalties as harsh for actions that endanger people as there are for actions that threaten competition.

[jdtesluk]

I think that a big problem is cost. The roads are reclaimed with heavy machines, which have a run rate of a few hundred dollars per hour. And floating full-sized excavators requires a low-bed and tractor, so unless the blocks are close enough that you can walk the machine between them, you're looking at float costs of perhaps upwards of a thousand dollars per move. I understand why the licensees are reluctant to have a situation whereby they have to bring a big machine back to "finish the job" of road reclamation after the planters are done.

If a road like the photo above can be left in a reclaimed road, then the clean-up work can legitimately be done with a smaller machine. Here's an example:
https://kubota.ca/en/products/power-equ ... tors/kx040

Something like that is cheaper to operate, fine for a small job like pulling debris into that 4-foot quad strip, and light enough to move around on a two-axle trailer behind a heavy pickup.

Of indeed it is cost all the way. I think you may have been the one to explain to me that sometimes the logging contractor is in a rush to deactivate the road, because there is a often a deposit they cannot retrieve until that is done.

However, based on what you have shown here, I wonder if there could be some way to innovate on some of the steeper harder access roads where a machine like you show can be used?

[Cyper]

In regards to the Campbell River fall contract, I appreciate the concern shown by YellowCedar - a name that likely means you're from the coast yourself. Noting that the bids by the four contractors were all so close and assuming that they all had a good look at the ground involved, I'd imagine that the prices are mostly doable. This particular contract has always been bid very competitively. The fact tat it includes both a fall & a spring portion likely has something to do with that.
I do agree however that there are lots of risks involved and that the contractors may be wearing rose coloured glasses when bidding. Unfortunately that likely doesn't do the planters much good. Again here, supply and demand is at play. Lots of planters vying for not very many jobs ensures contractors that they'll have no trouble filling crews and little likelihood of planters leaving.
As to contractors getting together in some way to raise bids, it's just not going to happen. Although Jordan is absolutely correct in noting the penalties involved in any form of collusion or bid rigging, I don't think that the contractors involved in this bid are buddies enough to even consider talking about pricing.
As I've said before, one of the big issues is contractors who make lots of money in the interior just don't need to make any money in the fall. They may just want to keep their workforces supplied with fall work and so in the fold.
The bigger problem is that this idea of giving contractor's crews more work and thus keeping them at lest a little more loyal, bleeds over into the spring where it affects a lot more trees and so more planters. The idea that unfortunately works is that if you get early spring coast work, you build your crew for the lucrative interior. So sadly the coast market takes a beating.

[jdtesluk]

So given the issues, what to do? This pattern has been playing out in some form for years.

I have suggested to the association that coastal planters are like the keystone species for the industry...the best, most qualified, and most capable, and the group that is committed to a long season, while making the coast tick. They pass on a lot to new planters, and many play central roles as crew bosses in the interior after the coast. I even argue that they hold a value to the industry that could be quantified in terms of career contributions in workdays and other measurables. They also comprise a lot of local residents, parents, and community influencers in towns like Cumberland, Port Alberni, Campbell River.....Certainly, the well-being of the smaller contractors that only or mostly plant the coast is also important as a source of capacity in the sector, and they too play the aforementioned roles in communities, with many of them heavily vested in working near their homes.

However, I have to prop up these arguments somewhat on values, and somewhat based on tying threads together.
It's not like a coastal contractor folds and the industry stops dead in its tracks, and even if 20 coastal vets all retire at once, the industry doesn't panic. But over time, it's pretty clear that the impacts have been felt most acutely by the most committed workers and the choices they face based on their opportunities in the sector- and that seems wrong, that the best and most committed are the ones facing the hardest path in the industry...one could say the same thing for members of the coastal harvesting sector who have seen their own opportunities dwindle with every load of raw logs that gets shipped out of the province. Maybe the heyday of the coastal vets and the stability of that position in the reforestation sector was doomed from the start, based on the rate of liquidation of coastal timber. Still, it continues to scratch something in the back of my mind that something needs to be done about the coast.
There have been suggestions of coastal contractor forums. What else, what might one hope to accomplish even if they could bring all the relevant parties together?

[Scooter]

You'd think that a bit of common sense would come into play. There's something wrong when 2nd year "vets" at rookie mills in the Interior can make more and even significantly more per day in May than some 15-year coastal vets are making on some coastal contracts.

Or maybe there's nothing wrong, and that's just what to expect with the supply/demand imbalance for labour vs. work available.

[Cyper]

jdtesluk wrote: "There have been suggestions of coastal contractor forums. What else, what might one hope to accomplish even if they could bring all the relevant parties together?"

Yes many years ago there was at least one coastal contractor get together to discuss this coastal low bidding, self defeating dynamic. That did not end well. The contractor who played the pre-eminent role in organizing it and was most forceful in suggesting higher bids ended up underbidding everyone else and took most of the work that fall. That pretty much poisoned the waters from what I've heard. What little trust there was evaporated. Unfortunately for the WSCA, they were involved. Consequently you don't see any of the smaller coastal contractors as members.
Further to the discussion about collusion, this meeting being largely lip service about raising prices, could be construed as criminal anyway?

Whilst we benefit from this aggressive capitalist system for the most part, we are also victims of it. I can't see a way around the supply/demand dynamic. As long as there are more planters wanting jobs than there are jobs in a piece rate system, we are going to see this scenario over and over again.

[jdtesluk]

The outcome of that last coastal meeting is well-known, and I've heard the regrets and misgivings from parties on all sides. You are correct that it created some deep resentment, but that was also more than 10 years ago. I tend to think that people are capable of getting over those things, but there would have to be a very clear set of objectives and focus points to make another such meetings attractive. Maybe I'm naive in taking some people at face value, but I have heard from people that are either over that, or who feel lessons were learned. Still, I know memories are long, and I will still hear occasional gripes from more than 20 years in the past from someone that "stole" a contract from another.

I would suggest the lack of small coastal contractors in the WSCA also comes down to money...there are some that are supportive and interested in joining but they remain doubly hampered in that A) they are small, B) coastal work isn't turning great profits...thus hard to join up...but certainly more than a few of them remain supportive and involved on the periphery.

There is nothing in the collusion rules to prevent contractors from gathering to talk about market conditions or financial matters. They simply cannot engage in agreements that relate to agreements on price for services (or products), and that theoretically can extend to agreements on bidding or not bidding. In fact, contractors have been meeting all year and talking very explicitly on matters of costing for Covid, and have devoted hundreds of hours to creating spreadsheets and formulae to explain to contractors and licensees alike the need for funding to pay for isolation of symptomatic workers, support staff for camps and motels, and the various consumables related to management plans. There is a deep concern that contractors should not have to compete with each other on Covid management (i.e. compete on safety) and there needs to be a clear acknowledgement of costs involved in this effort in order to stand up against licensees that want to whittle them down on that front as well.
Contractors talking money is not new. In the past they have generated graphs on inflation rates vs earnings, and talked without filter about the costs of labour and what needs (or should) be done to push wages up. So there are many perfectly legitimate ways in which contractors can meet and talk about financial matters...but some hard and fast limits on certain things such as agreements on bids. I tend to think there is some traction in the line of safety considerations, about some jobs requiring some base costs that should not be subject to someone bidding low on the basis of taking a shortcut. Perhaps some of the comments previous here strike to that point.

As for the planters, I would predict that there will be a strong return in the coming year due to other sectors that draw on similar recruits (ie. service, rec, and tourism) in Covid-decline. We will certainly hear from unhappy parties that will swear the industry off (many do every year). However, simply looking at options, I think planting will continue to see lots of eager and willing planters. That won't help the jobs-trees balance.

I'm not ready to give up on pushing for protecting the coast. I absolutely acknowledge the system challenges that you describe. It will take creative thinking and commitment to make a change. I will continue to be optimistic. I feel frustrated at times to have a lack of viable suggestions that make sense, but I still won't stop trying.

One thing that I have thought of in the past is a "work-to-rule" approach. Just imagine what that would look like in a coastal planting milieu. Yes, the practicality of it happening may be far-fetched, but still imagine....work-to-rule means that you do everything completely and without exception according to the rules and regulations. Imagine taking every rule related to the planting contract and to safety, and following it to the strictest degree of interpretation, from 3-point contact in climbing, to never lifting over a certain weight, to never moving your body in certain ways, assess every slope, take every safest route regardless of the length, to the handling of stock like fine china.....yes, people are always seeking to follow every rule to the fullest in the interest of safety, but work-to-rule takes it to the extreme....it demonstrates that what is being asked in these conditions is only possible when you foist all the risk on the shoulders of those that do the task, and by virtue of the financial conditions actually "force" them to compromise safety and health to do the task in a way that permits profit to occur. I estimate that if you work-to-rule on the coast, production is cut by 75% (totally off the top of my head). Just a thought.

[YellowCedar]

Just to be clear I'm not talking about colluding. I'm talking about opening up another discussion.

No contractor can be "proud" of their bids on the Coast knowing that they're paying themselves just enough to cover costs, maybe make a couple bucks and most importantly pay the planters just enough to keep them barely grateful in the field (but certainly not happy).

The licensees are the ones who are benefitting the most from these atrocious prices. The licensees are the ones who are happy and we, the planters, are the ones who are barely grateful but mostly disgruntled. By feeding the sharks little morsels they created a feeding frenzy that has now lasted 20 years. Talk about colluding? I'm certain that TW and IT have had numerous conversations discussing ways to encourage these slashed bids.

We need to bring them into this discussion and brainstorm a way to fatten up the bids. Perhaps we need to discuss a minimum price to the planter on the Coast (for eg: no tree should ever be less than 22 cents on the Coast; old growth, steep, grapple yard blocks must be a minimum of 30 cents). Perhaps there needs to be a performance rating like for BCTS. If a contractor fails in certain safety aspects than they get benched for a year. Perhaps we need to bring back the old, but not forgotten, promise of direct award work.

I understand supply and demand. I understand the metaphor of the big interior fish eating the little coastal fish. I understand how some contractors use the Coast to warm up their planters and are thus willing to sacrifice prices for this benefit. But tree planters (planters, foremen, supervisors, owners) are some of the most creative people I know and I'm certain they can brainstorm a way to encourage healthier bids.

Some will state that none of this is possible. But I'm a believer (BCTS Kamloops went for 71 cents last spring--who would've believed that 3 years ago?). There needs to be a conversation and the sooner the better because the next round of bids are right around the corner.

[Cyper]

While I agree with YellowCedar's sentiments, I think the chances of implementing his recommendations is highly unlikely.

Yes the licensees are the ones benefitting as well as their shareholders of course. Their prime directive from their teacher's union pension fund bosses is to make as much money as possible and keep those dividends rising. That's the harsh reality of corporate enterprise. Social conscience is sadly lacking. They don't give a dam about you and me or any of us really. They pay lip service to the communities they "serve". I throw the lot of them into the same basket.

They have no interest and will not have any interest going forward in having any discussions with us, the contractors or for that matter anyone who might negatively impact their bottom line. Western Forest Products just recently wouldn't even talk constructively with the union representing their employees, resulting in a protracted strike.

As far as performance ratings go, that ain't gonna happen. If it somehow could, please god, don't let it be like the ineffective and bureaucrat quagmire they call the BCTS Contractor Rating System. What a waste of time and energy that is. I just can't imagine getting the licensees together to agree on some kind of bottom line on safety, tree prices to workers or anything else that doesn't benefit them.

There is a lot of work being done by the WFCA to try and get prices up. Unfortunately this organization is perceived by a number of contractors to be heavily influenced by Brinkman & Ass. Whether it is or not, I don't know but appearances are important and Brinkman can afford to have his minions spending time and energy working on the committees and in the leadership, so they do. Not saying they aren't doing good work of value to all of us, but they scare off the smaller contractors. In any case, the WFCA is the only organized voice representing both the contractors and the planters. It's too bad they aren't better funded and supported by us all. I know for a fact that they emptied their coffers this year making sure we were all able to work at all and then to work without getting a single person infected!

Prices will continue to be good (at least in the interior) as long as the supply/demand ratio is in our favour, like it is now. After that goes south I hope I will have moved on because I don't want to have any part of the industry once the decline begins. It won't be pretty. Of course by then drones will probably have replaced us anyway!

[Scooter]

Prices will continue to be good (at least in the interior) as long as the supply/demand ratio is in our favour,

If planters were smart, all of the young planters (first through fourth year) would stop telling their friends that tree planting is a great time. It is in existing planters' best interests to tell all potential job applicants to run away as fast as possible. If existing planters can exert influence to reduce the size of the applicant pool, and to reduce the supply of labour, those experienced planters become more scarce and therefore more valuable. In such an environment, planting company owners (especially at the larger companies) would be more likely to continue to try to keep prices and earnings high, to ensure that they retain a workforce.

This is basic economics. If anyone doesn't believe it, look at the past two years, as prices rose quickly when it became obvious that there was a very strong need for a larger workforce.

Of course, many of the planters who are only in it for a summer job for a few years don't care about the long-term health of the industry, so they continue to brag about what a great job it is. And the supply/demand imbalance evens out.

Thankfully (for planters), there continue to be a huge number of trees on the market, so prices should maintain their current strength for a few more years.

[Scooter]

Also, on a completely different note, does anyone with any direct connection to the logging industry have any commentary on how Covid has affected logging over the past six months?

The reason I ask is because I've been looking at the BCTS Williams Lake contracts for the last five days, and it seems that they might have decided not to plant any fresh logging this year. I haven't looked at every single block yet, but I'm about 80% done and I'm seeing a ton of fills and old blocks. Has there been a big drop in harvesting throughout BC? Maybe this particular office is using a lack of current harvesting as an opportunity to catch up on their backlog of blocks that are performing poorly?

I also haven't seen a single loaded logging truck yet in my travels this fall, and I've viewed 19 million trees worth of blocks so far on a dozen different contracts. I feel like the Maytag repairman out there.

Edit: I finally found some fresh logging in Williams Lake.

[mwainwright]

Lots of fresh logging up here on Haida Gwaii, I don’t think it even slowed down due to the pandemic.

[TripleS]

Still lots of logs coming out of the bush down south. Perhaps the lost timber supply due to fires has reduced the cut of the mills up there? Too bad with the current price of lumber.

[Cyper]

I wonder how many are aware of BCTS' new policy about not releasing bid results until after the winning bidder has signed the contract. This clause is now in all BCTS planting tenders. The wording implies that it's due to Covid and so tender openings will be "in private". However under this guise, they are now keeping the actual bid prices secret during that crucial period where contractors have to make decisions as to which jobs to accept and which ones to let go. On top of that I count 21 contracts with tenders opening between October 20 and October 23. This will make it harder for contractors to know if they've badly underbid a job relative to everyone else or if they have a bid that's in line with the competition.

I can't see any advantage to BCTS in doing this. I guess they may think contractors collude and would bargain back and forth? If contractors were closely enough linked with each other to do that, I'm sure they'd compare bids anyway. Again BCTS has come up with another ill considered idea that hinders rather than helps. Perhaps they think this will help to drive prices back down? As they say, knowledge is power and BCTS is keeping the knowledge to themselves.

[YellowCedar]

In order to keep our crews safe by avoiding going into town on days off I’ve thinking about buying portable washers and driers. Ideally, they would come with their own tanks for the reusable water. One could fabricate a hamster wheel and have a couple planters run to operate them. And then after a contract you just hook them up (the washer and drier) to the back of a truck: Washers and driers on wheels. Any advice Maytag man?

[jdtesluk]

I know there were several contractors that set up laundry last year, and I'd seen people do it even before that to reduce the need for crew to drive to town. Surprisingly, the driers were harder to keep running than the washers. They just bought whatever was cheap and available. Proper water filtering is important for washers, and a good stable foundation so the machines don't bounce around. Also, these machines suck a lot power, so you have to be set up for that. Although I like the hamster-wheel idea.

As for the WFCA and the whole prices market thing, really the association has a LOT of other functions beside addressing prices....safety, negotiating with ministry on standards, communicating silviculture needs, mapping future volume.

From what I have seen over the past few years, the most meaningful discussions about market conditions occur when it is not just WFCA members involved. The COVID response was a great example. While much of it was safety, a lot of the discussion centered around figuring out how to secure compensation for increased costs, and non-members were crucial to that conversation. Another example would be the annual Kamloops contractors meeting that was happening over the last few years with members and non-members alike. One can't just put a finger on it and say "there, that's what made the difference". However, it did allow contractors to gather and share information such as the way that minimal wage rises changes payroll calculation for rookies, mapping new costs due to changes in supply chains, discussing labour pool issues such as what workers need and want, and also sharing information about the costs of taking risks on jobs such as those with bad access or with tight seasonal windows or checkers-from-hell. More knowledge of risk can sometimes have a cautionary function for bidders that fail to identify the pitfalls in certain jobs. There have been several examples where contractors went and signed up for the association after attending these meetings, after realizing the value of exchanging information about measuring job needs. Certainly there is a bit of a card-game in that individuals are careful about WHAT information they share. However, learning from peers, particularly for younger and less experienced contractors, seems helpful for measuring the market and gathering other information. But again, those really good meetings, although usually facilitated by the WFCA, seem to be most effective when non-members also attend.
Indeed, the WFCA has faced some challenges reaching smaller contractors, historically that seems to have been the norm. They are constantly trying to figure out how to address that from the discussions I have been party to. However, it also makes sense that one-person shows have less time to spare one person from their team to go to the functions, as that one person is often already fixing trucks, doing payroll, and throwing plots.

[Scooter]

Thanks for the feedback re. logging. I also had a few people send me direct emails. It sounds like logging is still going strong in some parts of the province. I moved up to Prince George today and saw a few loaded trucks around town, which is reassuring. Must have just been odd circumstances that I didn't see any until today.

[candycorn]

63 cents per tree BUYS this contract. So either the winning bidder (in this case Leader, Evergreen and Zanzibar could've taken this job since their bids were so close) will make zero money on this contract--Or the planters will suffer tremendously.

I'm pretty sure I just finished planting this contract and while it was very difficult with respects to terrain, quality specs, access, and weather I felt I was paid well. (75% of interior) Compared to other fall contracts I've done with two other contractors I was happy. Kudos to Zanzibar. No idea if THEY made money though

[Scooter]

The interesting thing about collusion is that it is illegal to talk about or plan/agree on any sort of pricing before a bid is opened. However, once a public bid has been opened by the government (which is accountable to the public purse), there is nothing to prohibit company owners from phoning their friends and competitors and announcing what their bids were. So once a bid has been opened, company owners can share information publicly, including on this forum.

This year, BCTS has adopted the stance of doing all public tender openings in private. This is a reaction to Covid. I don't disagree with this approach. Safety first.

However, two of the BCTS offices [so far] have elected not to share bid results "immediately" after the bids have been opened. In particular, Campbell River did not share results until after the winning bidder signed the contract. And Burns Lake released rankings on the PL22TAS0101 contract yesterday afternoon, but without price data.

It appears that BCTS believes that by hiding numbers, there will be a benefit to BCTS. Why else would they do this? They can do private openings and yet continue to release full Unverified Bid Results the same day, as they have in the past. There's no technical reason not to. In fact, Prince George did just that today, sharing prices from this morning's opening. So what might prompt this new secretive approach?

My guess (which is purely speculation of course) is that BCTS is trying to avoid a situation whereby a low bidder gets to see how low they were compared to the 2nd place bidder. Hypothetically, if there is a large difference which scares the low bidder, it could cause the low bidder to refuse to honour their bid. This would increase the cost [to BCTS] for getting the work completed. Fair enough; this is not in the best interests of BCTS.

However, in practice, has this ever been a problem in the past? I would argue that it hasn't been. We've seen 30-50 public contracts per year for the last decade, so let's think about that data set of perhaps 400ish contracts. In that time, I can only think of a little over a dozen contracts where the awarded moved "up the line" from the lowest bid to a higher bid. In the majority of cases where that happened, I've been told that the decision was mutual, ie. discussed by the low bidder and the forester, rather than being initiated solely by the low bidder. If someone really screws up a bid, it is in the forester's best interests to gently point out to the low bidder that they may have screwed up, and that it would be Ok if they walked away. If I had a choice between getting a job done properly for $800,000 vs not getting it done properly for $700,000 then I'm going to think carefully about what I might expect when the low bidder shows up. You know the saying, "You get what you pay for."

Another consideration is that we've seen several contracts whereby someone has left a lot of money on the table, then gone ahead to accept and plant the contract, and did just fine. If an owner discovers that they left a lot on the table, then sure, they should be worried if they didn't take a good look at the job. But what if they looked at the entire job very carefully, and they carefully examined the access and walked all of the blocks? In that case, if they feel comfortable with what they bid, then there is no incentive to drop a bid just because they were "quite a bit lower" than the 2nd place bidder. Sometimes, the higher bids on a contract are what I call "lottery bids," whereby a company throws out a high bid just for fun (not actually expecting to get the job). This is a good technique for confusing their competitors.

This situation is quite amusing. I wonder if some people are failing to see the bigger picture. If BCTS wants to hide the numbers, I would think that it would encourage company owners to bid even higher, just to be safe, rather than trying to bid more competitively. Think beyond a single contract. If I was a company owner and I wanted to bid 63 cents on a particular job, and I did some research and discovered that other jobs recently in the area were going for 58-66 cents, then I'd feel comfortable putting in my 63 cent bid. But if I had no idea what the typical market bids had been recently, I'd be more nervous and therefore more conservative. Or at least I assume that would be the case. I do a lot of viewing each fall, but my role is limited to the field work. I drive around, look at maps, walk up and down mountains (taking photos and making notes). I've never done the paperwork of putting a bid together in the office. That's the way that I like it. Since I'm not the one taking the risk or signing my name to the bid, I like to think of myself as having the perfect job (as long as I drive carefully). How many other people get to say that they get paid to drive up and down mountains and take photos?

So back to Burns Lake. I'm sure that if we wanted to, we [the Replant Community] could quickly obtain most of the price data. We could simply suggest that company owners email their bids to me AFTER the opening has taken place, when there are no longer any legal restrictions from talking about prices. For example, I just reached out to some people a few minutes ago and found out that the 2nd and 3rd place bidders on the Burns Lake job were at approx. $998k and $999k, separated by about $1600. And that's after just two quick calls. I feel that a lot of people would enjoy being part of that game.

I should also point out that there is a contract clause that allows a bidder up to 48 hours to withdraw from a bid after the time of opening.

Let's let BCTS think about this for a bit, and decide whether or not hiding the numbers is really in their best interests.

Edit, one hour later: The numbers are coming in. The highest bid was 64.9 cents/tree or $1,317,136 overall. I wonder if BCTS can post full results before we do?

[Scooter]

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

Contract: PL22TGC002
Client: BCTS Prince George
# of Trees: 1,397,069
Season: Summer 2021
Opened: October 14th, 2020
Contractor Rating System: Yes
Left on the Table: 0.9%

Congratulations to Dynamic for some juicy and highly coveted summer trees near PG.

01. $ 648,632 - 46.4 cents per tree - Dynamic
02. $ 654,420 - 46.8 cents per tree - Celtic
03. $ 690,172 - 49.4 cents per tree - Summit
04. $ 691,045 - 49.5 cents per tree - Outland
05. $ 746,416 - 53.4 cents per tree - Folklore
06. $ 812,375 - 58.1 cents per tree - Apex
07. $ 828,605 - 59.3 cents per tree - Hybrid 17
08. $1,001,210 - 71.7 cents per tree - Spectrum

[Scooter]

I've had some emails today which were quite interesting.

Q1. PG Job - questions about whether the results of the PG job seem to indicate a slight downward pressure on bid prices from last year.

A: I don't think so. First, you can't take a single result and extrapolate a trend from it. Second, and far more importantly, this contract was exclusively for summer trees. As we've seen, there is a significant discount for summer work compared to spring work, due to the imbalance of spring/summer ground and the desire of companies to keep their crews going past June 21st. Considering that a highly desirable summer-only contract of good ground around PG just went for 46 cents, I believe that we can almost be certain that some of the spring contracts in the Interior will be seeing a lot of bids in the 60's and 70's this fall.


Q2. Transparency of Bid Results.

It was pointed out to me today that if foresters believe that "cloaking the results" will help reduce upward pricing pressure, then how do we account for the fact that prices remained weak for quite a few years from 2010-2017 when the pricing data was being shared publicly here for years? I don't think it matters. I don't believe that hiding the bid results is going to make bid prices lower.

It was also pointed out that it's not just company owners that like to look at this part of the forum to follow pricing trends. Many foresters (public and private) use this as a resource too. So it is starting to appear that there are quite a few industry stakeholders of various stripes who seem to think that this new policy is asinine.

I would also point out that this new policy is not necessarily set in stone for the long term. It may be that BCTS is debating whether or not this benefits them. Also, since they've indicated that the full bids will still be posted (just a few days later, after the contract has been signed), it doesn't really make a big difference here.

Ironically, some BCTS foresters have told me that they pay close attention to the pricing data here, because it's easier to read here than by digging up internal results on BC Bid.

[Scooter]

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Burns Lake

Contract: PL22TAS0101
Client: BCTS Burns Lake
# of Trees: 2,029,100
Opened: October 7th, 2020

At the moment we mostly only have ranked results. I will post updates as I receive additional information.

01. Nature's Treasures - exact details not yet available
02. $ 998,116 - 49.2 cents/tree - Folklore
03. $ 999,716 - 49.3 cents/tree - Summit
04. Blue Collar - exact details not yet available
05. $1,095,200 - 54.0 cents/tree - Dynamic
06. Celtic - exact details not yet available
07. Windfirm - exact details not yet available
08. Apex - exact details not yet available
09. $1,317,136 - 64.9 cents - Hybrid 17

The above numbers are the allegedly correct numbers. I've also been given rough numbers of about 45 cents, 52 cents, and 55 cents per tree for three of the other bids.

[Scooter]

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

Contract: PL22TLE002
Client: BCTS Williams Lake
# of Trees: 2,472,600
Opened: October 15th, 2020

At the moment we mostly only have ranked results. I will post additional updates as numbers become available.

01. Apex - exact details not yet available
02. Celtic - exact details not yet available
03. $1,295,371 - 52.4 cents/tree - Folklore
04. Summit - exact details not yet available
05. $1,406,130 - 56.9 cents/tree - NGR
06. $1,552,901 - 62.8 cents/tree - Dynamic

[Cyper]

I would also point out that this new policy is not necessarily set in stone for the long term. It may be that BCTS is debating whether or not this benefits them. Also, since they've indicated that the full bids will still be posted (just a few days later, after the contract has been signed), it doesn't really make a big difference here.

From what I've heard as of today, the WFCA has been unable to impress upon BCTS how asinine their new secrecy in releasing bid results is. It appears BCTS will stick with their new policy regardless.

In reality, the results will not be posted within "just a few days", but more likely within a few weeks - or longer. That's more realistic in terms of how long it takes to get a contractor to agree to accept the contract and sign the contract. Even then BCTS may very likely drag their feet in posting the results.
As an example take the BCTS Port Alberni contract which opened on August 10th and is no doubt completed now. The bid amounts still have not been posted on BC Bid.

[jdtesluk]

So what can be done?
FOIPPA?
Or could the contractors simply share their bids after the fact?
If they actually value the information gleaned from the bid sheets, they could do that later, perhaps through Scooter or some other non-vested party?

How delightful would it be if the prices actually hurtled upwards? One may not be able to connect any such rise to this policy, considering all the other things going on right now, but certainly this will be interesting to watch.

[Scooter]

I just set up a new email address:

bids@replant.ca

It would be easy for me to collect bids at that email. Anyone who has information is welcome to send info there.

I will assume that any info sent to that particular email address has been provided with the expectation of being shared publicly, so I will share info from that address without double-checking with the sender. When people send me info to my regular email account that I think they might want me to re-post anonymously, I always double-check first to be certain.

Any data sent to bids@replant.ca will be shared anonymously, ie. I'll know who sent it but I won't reveal that. Of course, if it's a bid amount from a specific company, the source of the data will be obvious.

Having said that, I'm kind of busy right now. I haven't stopped moving since April, and this coming week is Sweeps Week for public bids. I don't know if that term is very accurate with respect to its origins (the Neilson ratings), but I'm sure the trees being awarded in the next seven days will sweep your off your feet. There are a TON of bids due between Monday and Friday. So I'll try to set aside a few hours on Saturday or Sunday (Oct 24/25) to catch up on the backlog here.

I'll figure out the best way to approach this system of collecting and sharing info by next weekend.

Also, a reminder that you can "subscribe" to this topic by clicking the wrench icon near the bottom of the page. If you do, any time that someone posts in this topic, the board will email you to let you know that there is new content here.

[Scooter]

I like to think of myself as having the perfect job (as long as I drive carefully). How many other people get to say that they get paid to drive up and down mountains and take photos?

I take this back.

It's a world of shit out there. You'd think by now that foresters would realize that people doing the viewing are in a better mood when the maps come out early enough that they can look at the blocks in the late summer or early fall, NOT when there's so much snow that the trucks can barely make it to the blocks. Maps that come out ahead of the pack, in late August and early September, get lower prices.

[YellowCedar]

Haha. Well said. Although I shouldn’t laugh cuz it’s not funny. But what you say is true. Yup map packages are frequently late or with some errors. Big rush to get everything viewed and get the bids done in time. Hopefully win a couple contracts. Sit and wait all winter. Hurry up and wait for snow to melt. Then slap them trees in the ground. And when the contracts are complete the final maps are due within ten days of completing a contract or else get fined $.05 per tree for every day late.

I’m not sure I’d want to view in August/September during the heat of summer. Good time to go swimming and recover from the spring/summer plants. And hopefully get some fall trees.

‘Happy’ viewing. Drive safely out there.

[Scooter]

I've been getting queries today about a recent accident. The preliminary Incident Report was released publicly today by WorkSafeBC.

It's a grim reminder about the risks inherent in our work. Also, a reminder about the importance of being extremely cautious on our bush roads. I hope we don't ever hear about another incident like this. Condolences to the many people affected by this tragedy.

I hope everyone can take time to think about ways to improve our safety while viewing.

[jdtesluk]

This was a hard one. A really good person in a good company, with some very tight bonds in the industry. Happened during the viewing period. I expect those closest to the incident will release more details when they are ready to celebrate the person.

This is a really important reminder to all supervisor and manager staff. You're probably more vulnerable than anyone when it comes to MVIs. Partly because of the long hours, partly because you are doing recon where there may not be other people, and partly because you often work incredibly long hours.

As you go through the rest of this fall, take a few more breaks. Stop and take a picture of that goat or bear instead of speeding on by. Have a cup of something hot and stretch your legs. Stay fresh, stay alert, stay focused.

[Scooter]

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Vanderhoof

Contract: PL22TJE004
Client: BCTS Vanderhoof
# of Trees: 1,247,290
Season: Spring 2021
Contractor Rating System: Yes

At the moment we only have ranked results. I know numbers from one company. As soon as I get numbers from at least one more company, I will start sharing information.

01. Seneca
02. Folklore
03. Summit
04. Apex
05. Brinkman
06. Celtic

[Scooter]

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

Contract: PL22TGC001
Client: BCTS Prince George
# of Trees: 1,850,792
Season: Spring 2021
Opened: October 20th, 2020
Contractor Rating System: Yes
Left on the Table: 14.1%

Thanks to the staff in the Prince George BCTS office for releasing these full results immediately.

01. $ 897,282 - 48.5 cents - Celtic
02. $1,024,006 - 55.3 cents - Folklore
03. $1,115,867 - 60.3 cents - Brinkman
04. $1,128,018 - 60.9 cents - Apex
05. $1,163,420 - 62.9 cents - Seneca

[Scooter]

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

Contract: PL22TLE003
Client: BCTS Williams Lake
# of Trees: 1,630,354
Season: Spring 2021
Opened: October 20th, 2020
Contractor Rating System: Yes

At the moment we mostly only have ranked results. I will post updates as I get additional numbers.

01. $ 864,110 - 53.0 cents - NGR
02. Summit - exact details not yet available
03. Celtic - exact details not yet available
04. Apex - exact details not yet available
05. $1,054,394 - 64.7 cents - Folklore

[Scooter]

I will try to post some major updates here on Sunday evening between 8pm and 9pm, Pacific Time.

[Scooter]

Here are the results for another contract for Planting in Burns Lake

Contract: PL22TAS0102
Client: BCTS Burns Lake
# of Trees: 2,006,000
Season: Spring 2021
Opened: October 21st, 2020
Contractor Rating System: Yes

At the moment we mostly only have ranked results. When I receive any additional numbers, I'll update this post.

01. Hybrid 17 - exact details not yet available
02. Blue Collar - exact details not yet available
03. Celtic - exact details not yet available
04. Summit - exact details not yet available
05. $ 965,653 - 48.2 cents/tree - Folklore
06. Windfirm - exact details not yet available
07. $1,039,808 - 51.8 cents/tree - Dynamic
08. Nature's Treasures - exact details not yet available
09. Apex - exact details not yet available

[Scooter]

Here are the results for another contract for Planting in Vanderhoof

Contract: PL22TJE005
Client: BCTS Vanderhoof
# of Trees: 1,089,845
Season: Spring 2021
Opened: October 21st, 2020
Contractor Rating System: Yes

At the moment we only have ranked results. I know numbers from one company. As soon as I get numbers from at least one more company, I will start sharing information.

01. Seneca
02. Folklore
03. Summit
04. Apex
05. Celtic
06. Brinkman

[Scooter]

That's all for now. I won't be posting any more until I get back from the bush on Sunday early evening and can update as many results as I've been able to collect.

In the meantime, for any companies who are trying to decide on bid pricing, I want to leave you with one thought:

At this point, there are still at least EIGHTEEN unopened contracts north of Quesnel, and that's just the ones that I'm aware of. And that doesn't include Quesnel itself. There are a lot of trees left to bid on. Take your time, because remember that the winning bids almost always trend higher as the viewing season progresses, especially in a time when there are a lot of trees on the market.

[Scooter]

Ok, I got some bids submitted from a handful of companies this evening, so I'll try to update those here over the next hour or so. I probably should have asked for people to email info to me on a Monday instead of a Sunday, when people were in the office. So I'll continue with any additional updates tomorrow evening.

There are a couple jobs where only one company bidding has provided numbers so far. In those instances, I'm not doing updates yet, as I don't think it's fair to the one company that submitted a price to have everyone else see their number, but not to see any other competing numbers.

Give me about an hour to get everything updated.

Also, somehow I've lost the sheet for PL22TLE001 (Wms Lake BCTS) so I'll have to track that down and update in the morning.

[Scooter]

Here are the results for a contract for Planting in Clinton

Contract: PL22CCF002
Client: Forsite
# of Trees: 1,054,890
Season: Spring 2021
Opened: October 23rd, 2020

At the moment we mostly have ranked results. As I get additional information, I will update this post.

01. Torrent
02. $518,835 - 49.2 cents/tree - Dynamic
03. Apex
04. $541,159 - 51.3 cents/tree - Leader
05. $543,268 - 51.5 cents/tree - Zanzibar
06. $584,953 - 55.5 cents/tree - Folklore
07. Brinkman
08. A&G
09. Celtic

[Scooter]

Here are the results for a contract for Planting near Cache Creek

Contract: PL22FOR002
Client: Forsite
# of Trees: 819,704
Opened: October 22nd, 2020
Season: Spring 2021

At the moment we mostly have ranked results. As I get additional information, I will update this post.

01. $396,280 - 48.3 cents/tree - Folklore
02. Apex
03. $456,575 - 55.7 cents/tree - Zanzibar
04. $460,568 - 56.2 cents/tree - Dynamic
05. Brinkman
06. $474,609 - 57.9 cents/tree - Evergreen
07. $476,581 - 58.1 cents/tree - A&G
08. Torrent
09. $504,118 - 61.5 cents/tree - Leader
10. Celtic