Summary#
Montréal city council adopted a decision under the official title Conclure des ententes-cadres avec les firmes Albert-Viau (Emco Corporation), St-Germain Égouts (lots 2, 3 et 7) pour la fourniture de bornes d'incendie et de pièces d'égout et d'aqueduc…. It awards framework agreements for fire hydrants and sewer and water-main parts, for a 12-month term with two optional 12-month extensions. City staff say the goal is to keep supplies available for repairs and maintenance.
- St-Germain Égouts et Aqueducs inc. receives the awards for lots 2 and 3: $511,971.03 and $768,072.72, respectively, taxes included.
- Albert Viau (EMCO Corporation) receives the award for lot 7: $473,623.82, taxes included.
- The decision authorizes a further $263,050.14, taxes included, for changes in quantities.
- The city must evaluate the two suppliers’ performance. Orders are placed as needed; the listed quantities do not commit the city to buying a set amount.
What it means for you#
- City departments and boroughs: They can order the supplies under these agreements for city water and sewer work. Their budgets pay for purchases as needs arise.
- Residents: The decision does not directly change residents’ services, fees, or obligations. It funds supplies used in municipal repairs and maintenance.
Money#
The decision authorizes an estimated total of $2,016,717.71, taxes included, including the quantity-variation budget.
- The three supplier awards total $1,753,667.57; the additional variation budget is $263,050.14.
- The city received four bids through a public call for tenders. City staff report that all were compliant and that each selected supplier was the lowest compliant bidder for its awarded lot.
- The decision summary says prices are adjusted yearly according to the prices submitted for each contract year.
What is unclear#
- The decision does not say whether the listed award amounts cover only the first 12 months or also the two optional extensions.
- The city does not promise to buy set quantities. The materials do not say how much it will actually order or how spending will be divided among boroughs and city services.
- The decision requires supplier performance evaluations but does not describe their criteria or consequences.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the decision is that supplies are needed for repairs and maintenance of the city’s water and sewer networks.
- Four bids were received, all were compliant, and the city selected the lowest compliant bidder for each awarded lot.
- Ordering supplies as needed may help the city match purchases to actual demand.
Case against#
- The city is authorizing substantial spending, but the materials do not state how much it will ultimately spend because purchases depend on need.
- It is unclear whether the award amounts include the optional extensions; yearly price adjustments may also affect later costs.