Montreal awards firefighter gear contract

Summary#

Montréal city council unanimously set its position in favour of awarding Innotex inc. a $1,260,873.34 contract, taxes included, for firefighter protective clothing. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.

  • The contract would buy 300 sets: 240 for 120 new employees and 60 for urgent needs.
  • Innotex was the only bidder and its bid was compliant. Five companies took the tender documents; the call for tenders received one bid.
  • The city council’s position also calls for an evaluation of Innotex’s performance.

What it means for you#

  • Firefighters: If the contract is awarded, the clothing would supply two sets for each of 120 new employees, plus 60 for urgent needs. City staff say the clothing is needed for worker protection and to replace gear that is worn out, fails inspection, or is damaged.
  • Taxpayers: The agglomeration would bear the full expense because the Montréal fire service is an agglomeration responsibility.
  • Innotex: The company would receive the contract if the agglomeration council approves the award. If delivery is delayed beyond March, the supplier must provide clothing that meets the new NFPA 1970 standard.

Money#

The proposed contract amount is $1,260,873.34, taxes included.

  • City staff’s prior estimate was $1,404,201.17, taxes included; the bid is about 10% below that estimate.
  • The available material says the agglomeration would pay the expense and that credits are available in the Montréal fire service’s capital program. It gives no separate cost for the performance evaluation.

What is unclear#

  • The materials do not state the contract’s duration or delivery schedule.
  • The tender summary gives an opening date of January 6, 2025, although it says the call was published in November 2025. The correct opening date is unclear.

Case for#

  • City staff say the purchase would provide protective clothing for new firefighters and cover urgent replacement needs.
  • The sole compliant bid came in below the city’s estimate.

Case against#

  • Only one bid was received, so the materials provide no comparison with another compliant offer.
  • The materials do not give the delivery schedule or explain how the purchase fits with the planned longer-term contract once suppliers are certified to the new standard.