Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously adopted a position to terminate the contract with Supremex inc. for printing forms, envelopes and business cards for City employees. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting. City staff say the contract allows termination and that Supremex refused to perform its obligations.
- The contract was awarded in August 2024 after a public call for tenders. It was for 24 months, with an option to extend it by 12 months, and had an estimated value of $955,271.81, taxes included.
- The City’s position is to terminate the contract under its termination clause. Staff say a contract with another supplier is already in place to cover the transition.
- Staff plan to launch a new public call for tenders. They say the current contract prevents the City from doing so.
What it means for you#
- City employees: The contract covered printing services for employees. The decision does not change their rights or duties. Staff say a temporary contract covers the transition.
- Supremex: The City intends to terminate its contract with the company. City staff say Supremex will be held responsible for damages arising from its refusal to perform, including the cost of the first tender and any higher prices for replacement services.
- Residents: The decision does not directly change a resident service, fee or tax.
Money#
The City says the termination itself will require no payment because no purchases were made under the Supremex contract.
- The contract’s $955,271.81 value was an estimate, not an amount the City had spent.
- The staff report says a temporary contract is in place, but gives no amount or term for it.
- The City may face costs if replacement services cost more. Staff say they will seek damages from Supremex, but the amount and whether it will be recovered are not stated.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not give the temporary contract’s price or duration.
- They do not say how many bids were received for the original contract, or whether Supremex’s bid was the lowest compliant bid.
- The cost and timing of the new contract are not yet known.
Case for#
- Supremex told the City it would not perform the contract. Termination would allow the City to seek a new supplier through a public tender.
- Staff say the existing contract blocks a new tender, while a temporary contract covers the transition.
Case against#
- Replacement services could cost more than the Supremex contract, and the temporary contract also has an unstated cost.
- The City intends to seek damages, but the materials do not show how much it may claim or whether it will recover those costs.