Attachment 5 - Sample_Inspection.doc

Solicitation No: AG-xxxx-S-16-xxxx

Exhibit 5

SAMPLE PLANTING INSPECTION SHEET AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

PLANTING INSPECTION SHEET – CONTRACT AND FORCE ACCOUNT (FSH 2409.17)

FOREST

Kootenai

DISTRICT

Cascade

INSPECTOR

R. Needles

CONTRACT NUMBER

R1-00020-03

COR

P. Greenup

PLOT

SIZE 1/50th ac

TreesRUs, Inc

SUB ITEM

NUMBER 3.1

ACRES

AVERAGE

SPACING 12x12

MAX TREES/

PLOT 7

NUMBER 1 OF 1

Trees

Small scalp

M

Did not shade by stump

Seedlings too close

F

No shade; shallow planted tree

Acceptable established trees on plot

*First line for above ground.

Second line for below ground.

Calculation: Col 9 x Col. 11 x 100 = 55 x 20 x 100 = 90.235 Wasted trees on plots = 5

Col. 5 Col. 10 53 23

Submitted by Rob Needles, Inspector. 5/2/2003 All information is correct and complete.

Exhibit 5 (Continued)

SAMPLE PLANTING INSPECTION AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

Note that the Contractor filled out the Inspection Sheet header completely. The Forest, District, Contract Number, COR, Stand Number, Subitem, Acres, and Avg. spacing are information provided by the Government either directly or within the contract.

The Contractor provided the name of the (Contractor) Inspector, plot size, max trees/plot (based on contract tables), sheet number, and calculated the final quality. The Contractor assured that all columns and math were correctly done. The Contractor’s inspector signed and dated the inspection records and certified that the information was correct and accurate.

Based on the sample Inspection Sheet, the plot information was completed based on these observations:

Plot 1: Six trees were planted on the plot. The first tree did not have the required scalp width and received a C for scalping/clearing violation. Other trees were satisfactory above ground. There were no voids on the plot greater than 144 sq feet (12 x 12 spacing), so –0- unplantable spots are recorded. The inspector dug two trees, which is the minimum number based on 5 satisfactory trees in the above ground inspection. Both were properly planted.

Plot 2: There were seven planted trees on the plot, all satisfactory above ground. The inspector found a void on the plot with no trees that was larger than 144 sq. ft. The inspector checked for plantability and it unplantable. One unplantable spot was recorded. This caused one wasted tree in column 8. Note that the satisfactory trees recorded in column 9 is six (not seven- cannot exceed the maximum allowable trees, col. 6). In the below ground inspection, a piece of rotten wood was found in the hole, which is a foreign material violation (F).

Plot 3: There were five planted trees. One tree was not planted by a stump, which was a shade violation (X) since the contract required that all trees be planted by stationary shade when it is available. There were no voids on the plot of 144 sq, ft that were unplantable. The two sample trees that were dug were satisfactorily planted based on below ground requirements.

Plot 4: There were seven planted trees. Two trees were planted five feet apart (minimum spacing was 50% of 12 feet or 6 ft). A spacing violation (S) is recorded for one of the trees. The other trees were satisfactory. The inspector found two voids on the plot that were unplantable, each at least 144 sq ft (approximate square or circle), and recorded –2- unplantable spot in column 4. Based on only four planting spots, the maximum allowable trees is five. Since seven trees were planted, two trees are wasted. Only five trees are recorded in column 9. Two trees were dug and both were properly planted.

Plot 5: Seven trees were planted and all were satisfactorily planted above ground. There were no unplantable voids equal to 144 sq. ft. The below ground inspection revealed an air pocket in the lower part of the hole which is a Firmness violation (F).

Plot 6: There were six trees planted. One tree was not shaded which is a shade violation (X) since the contract required shade when it was available. Another tree was planted high with the root collar above the ground surface so a depth violation (D) was recorded. Four trees are identified as satisfactory. Based on this, two trees were dug from the four that were satisfactory above ground; and found to be planted properly.

Plot 7: There were seven trees planted all of which were satisfactory. No unplantable voids existed. Three trees were dug based on seven satisfactory trees; they were satisfactory.

Plot 8: Seven trees were planted all of which were satisfactory. Although they tended to be closer than 12 feet apart, they were not closer than 6 feet apart, so no violation occurred. There was a void on the plot about 14x14 in size with no trees, and was found to be unplantable after the inspector checked for plantability. One unplantable spot was noted. Since seven trees were planted but the maximum number of allowable trees is six (due to one unplantable spot), there is one wasted tree in column 8. Only six trees count as satisfactorily planted above ground (cannot exceed col. 6), thus two trees were dug and were satisfactory.

Exhibit 5 (Continued) Plot 9: Eight trees were planted. They tended to be closer than 12 feet apart but were not closer than 6 feet, thus no violation. There were no unplantable voids on the plot. The maximum allowable trees is seven, thus one wasted tree is recorded in col. 8. Three trees were dug based on seven satisfactory planted trees (cannot exceed col. 6).

The roots on one of the trees had been stripped either during planting or before planting. (if before planting, the planter should not have planted the tree) resulting in a violation for altered root length (L).

Plot 10: Four trees were planted, and each was satisfactorily planted. Almost half of the plot could not be planted because there were small trees that met the requirements for acceptable established trees. This accounted for about three areas of 12x12 feet in size that were taken up with the residuals accounting for three unplantable spots. Two trees were dug and found to be satisfactory.

Following the inspection, all numbers were checked and totaled. The final quality is calculated based on the equation provided on the backside of the inspection sheet.

Evaluation: It should be noted that as a final inspection, the Contractor failed to meet the required 93% quality for acceptable work. He would receive –10% of the bid price for this unit or pay item depending on how the contract is written. Although the Contractor over-planted, it helped to compensate for the above ground errors. It was the below ground errors that caused work to be unacceptable.

The over-plant also resulted in 5 wasted trees on the plots, which computes to 25 trees per acre that are excess. The Contractor should be assessed the wasted tree charges.