Summary#
On January 26, 2026, Montréal’s city council unanimously set its position in favour of three framework agreements with AFI par Edgenda inc. for online-learning design and production. The agreements would last two years, with two one-year renewal options; the agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The agreements cover three lots, with maximum amounts of $454,007.53, $454,007.53 and $151,335.84—$1,059,350.90 total, taxes included.
- The firm would provide services when requested. The resolution requires an evaluation of its performance.
- Spending would come from borough, city-service and linked-municipality budgets, as needs arise.
What it means for you#
- City units and linked municipalities: They could request services such as online courses, videos and learning materials. The agreements do not require them to order services or specify how much they must use.
- City employees and other learners: City staff describe online learning as an existing service. This decision does not itself guarantee particular courses or change access rules.
- Residents and taxpayers: The decision sets maximum agreement amounts, not a guaranteed purchase of that full amount.
Money#
The agreements have a combined maximum amount of $1,059,350.90, taxes included; no separate cost estimate for actual use is provided.
- Payment would be for services performed, charged to the relevant budgets as needs arise. The amounts exclude contingencies, quantity changes and related impacts.
- The city used a public call for tenders. Staff report 10 firms submitted bids and four were compliant overall. AFI par Edgenda inc. had the highest final score under the stated criteria; its prices were also the lowest compliant bids shown.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not say how much work the city expects to order, or how many courses or other products it expects to receive.
- They do not explain how renewal options would be exercised or how requests would be divided among the three lots.
Case for#
- City staff say the agreements would let different city units use a qualified firm without repeating procurement steps for each project.
- Staff also say using one provider across the lots could support consistent pricing and teaching approaches.
- The firm’s bids were below the city’s estimates, and staff report that it confirmed it could perform the work.
Case against#
- AFI’s prices were substantially below the city’s estimates and the next-lowest compliant bids. That may raise questions about whether the prices and delivery assumptions are realistic.
- All three lots would go to one firm. The materials do not explain what would happen if it could not meet demand or deliver the work as expected.