Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously set its position in favour of awarding UAP inc. a contract for a cloud-based vehicle diagnostic and technical-reference system. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The proposed contract is for 36 months, with two optional 12-month extensions. The stated amount is $867,933.26, taxes included.
- The system would include diagnostic and reference licences, cables and adapters, staff training, support and maintenance.
- The city received three bids; UAP was the only bid judged technically compliant. The resolution also directs that UAP’s performance be evaluated.
What it means for you#
- City mechanics and garages: The system is intended for use across the city’s 26 municipal garages. City staff say it could cover about 80% of the city’s roughly 7,000 vehicles. The contract includes training and support.
- Residents and taxpayers: This is a purchase for municipal vehicle maintenance. It does not directly change residents’ services, taxes or fees.
- Contract decision: City council’s vote sets its position; it does not itself award the contract.
Money#
The stated contract amount is $867,933.26, taxes included; city staff list $792,538.75 net of tax rebates in budget credits.
- City staff say the spending is covered by operating-budget credits and does not create an additional charge to the agglomeration council’s general-administration budget.
- The financial table lists spending for three years. It does not show separate amounts for the two optional extensions.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not make clear whether the stated amount includes the two extension options or what those options would cost.
- The decision does not set out how the performance evaluation will be conducted or what consequences could follow from its results.
Case for#
- City staff say the city’s varied fleet makes diagnosis and access to repair information difficult. A shared tool could standardize practice across garages.
- Staff expect faster access to technical information to help reduce repair delays and improve vehicle availability; these are expected benefits, not guaranteed results.
- The bid amount is 37.91% below the city’s latest estimate, according to the decision summary.
Case against#
- Only one of the three submitted bids was technically compliant, so the city had limited competition among bids it could accept.
- The listed amount does not explain the cost of using either extension option, making the possible full contract cost unclear.
- The materials describe expected improvements but provide no measured results showing how much repair time or cost the system would save.