Summary#
Montréal city council approved framework agreements (contracts for supplying goods as needed) with Cintas Canada ltée and Équipement de Sécurité Universel inc. for work clothing. The agreements run for 36 months and include two optional 12-month extensions. City staff say the goal is to make purchasing more consistent and convenient.
- Cintas will supply clothing under lots 1 and 3; Équipement de Sécurité Universel will supply lot 4. The city may order from them as needs arise.
- The approved amounts are $820,581.33 for lot 1, $105,856.31 for lot 3, and $852,729.33 for lot 4, plus $266,875.05 for changes in quantities.
- The agreements are available to all city business units. Units may use the city’s distribution centre or buy directly from a supplier.
- The city will assess the performance of Cintas for lot 1 and Équipement de Sécurité Universel for lot 4.
What it means for you#
- City workers: City staff say the clothing is for operational needs, including those of blue-collar and white-collar employees and managers. The decision does not create a new clothing entitlement; staff say the city already has duties under workplace safety rules and collective agreements.
- City boroughs and services: They must pay for orders from their own budgets, as needs arise. The listed quantities are estimates only; the city does not promise to order any particular amount.
- Residents: The decision does not directly change a resident service, tax, fee, or rule.
Money#
The approved maximums total $2,046,042.02, taxes included.
- The city awarded the agreements through public call for tenders 25-21173. Five suppliers submitted bids. The city selected the lowest compliant bid for each awarded lot; only Cintas appears as a compliant bidder for lot 3.
- Prices are adjusted yearly according to the prices submitted for each year of the agreements. Actual spending depends on orders placed.
- The materials give no separate estimate of costs for administering or assessing the agreements.
What is unclear#
- The supplied materials do not state when the 36-month period begins.
- They do not explain why no supplier was awarded lot 2.
- The agreements include two extension options, but the materials do not set out how or when those options would be exercised.
Case for#
- City staff say grouping clothing purchases will make supply more consistent and easier for the city’s business units.
- The lowest compliant bids were below the city’s latest estimates for all three awarded lots: by 39.6% for lot 1, 50.8% for lot 3, and 12.7% for lot 4.
- Orders are made as needed, and the city does not commit to buying the estimated quantities.
Case against#
- Only five of the 12 suppliers that obtained the tender documents submitted bids. That is some competition, but participation was limited.
- Actual spending may differ from the estimate because the city has made no promise to order set quantities, and prices are adjusted yearly.
- The materials do not explain why lot 2 was not awarded, leaving the coverage of the clothing needs in that lot unclear.