Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously adopted a position for the agglomeration council to enter a 36-month framework agreement with Bouty inc. for seating furniture. The agreement would include two 12-month extension options. City staff say the goal is to make purchasing easier and more consistent; this is an expected benefit, not a guaranteed result. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The proposed agreement would let City units order chairs and other seating from Bouty as needed. The City would not be required to buy a set quantity.
- The agreement’s maximum amount would be $2,899,968.43, taxes included. The resolution also authorizes $579,993.68, taxes included, for contingencies.
- Bouty was the lowest compliant bidder in public call for tenders 25-21124. The materials report four bids for lot 1.
- The resolution requires an evaluation of Bouty’s performance on this agreement.
What it means for you#
- Residents: This decision does not directly change residents’ rights, services, taxes, or fees.
- City units: If the agglomeration council approves the position, City units could order seating under the agreement as needs arise. The agreement does not guarantee that any particular quantity will be purchased.
- Taxpayers: City staff estimate that, based on past spending, the costs would be borne 36.05% by the central city, 21.46% by boroughs, and 42.49% by the agglomeration.
Money#
The resolution authorizes a maximum agreement amount of $2,899,968.43 and a contingency budget of $579,993.68, both taxes included; actual purchases depend on need.
- Each purchase order would need credit approval, according to the staff summary.
- The agreement’s base term is 36 months. The title lists two 12-month extension options, but the materials do not give their costs.
What is unclear#
- The staff summary gives the estimated total, including contingencies, as $3,479,962.08, while the resolution and official title give $3,479,962.11. The resolution is the decision adopted.
- The materials do not explain the cost or terms that would apply if either extension option is used.
- The resolution sets the City’s position; the agglomeration council’s final decision is not included in these materials.
Case for#
- City staff say a framework agreement can make purchasing more consistent and avoid negotiating each purchase separately.
- The staff summary says Bouty’s compliant bid was 32.22% below the City’s estimate for lot 1.
- Four bids were reported for lot 1, and Bouty was the lowest compliant bidder.
Case against#
- The City would authorize a contingency of $579,993.68, but the materials do not say how much of it will be needed.
- The agreement sets no guaranteed quantity, so the final spending is uncertain.
- The total amount differs by three cents between the resolution and staff summary.