Montréal backs 24-month water meter framework

Summary#

On September 21, Montréal city council unanimously approved the City’s position in favour of a 24-month framework agreement (an arrangement to buy goods as needed) with Aqua Data inc. for water meters. This is not the final contract award: the agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.

  • If approved, Aqua Data would supply meters 50 to 300 millimetres wide, without mechanical parts, for the drinking-water network, on request.
  • The agreement would have a maximum value of $341,721.77, taxes included. The prices would be fixed for 24 months, with no contingency or increase in the listed quantities.
  • The public call for tenders drew one bid. Aqua Data’s bid was found compliant.

What it means for you#

  • Residents: The decision does not directly change water rates, meter rules for homes, or access to water. City staff say the meters are intended for non-residential sites.
  • Aqua Data inc.: If the agreement is approved, the company would supply the meters when the City orders them.
  • City budgets: Boroughs and central services would pay for orders from their existing project or operating budgets, as needs arise.

Money#

The agreement’s maximum value is $341,721.77, taxes included, over 24 months.

  • City staff say there is no budget charge for the framework agreement itself; each purchase would be authorized and paid from existing budgets.
  • The bid was $123,926.98, or 26.61%, below the City’s estimate of $465,648.75.

What is unclear#

  • The staff summary says the purchase covers 51 meters, but its listed quantities add up to 59. The materials do not explain this difference.
  • The materials do not set out a schedule for orders or say how the meters would be divided among the boroughs and services.

Case for#

  • City staff say the meters support installation in non-residential buildings and the collection of water-use data. They warn that delaying the contract could disrupt installations and cause the City to lose consumption data.
  • The only bid was compliant and came in below the City’s estimate.

Case against#

  • Only one company bid. City staff report that one firm did not bid because it considered the request too restrictive, which raises a question about whether the City received enough competition.
  • The materials do not explain the discrepancy between the stated total of 51 meters and the listed quantities totalling 59.