Summary#
Montréal city council adopted a position to exercise the first 12-month extension of its agreement with Imprime-Emploi and authorize an additional $671,469.74, taxes included. The agreement covers printing and distributing notices, letters and invitation cards about upcoming work. City staff say the aim is to keep residents informed about work in their neighbourhoods. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The extension would run from February 26, 2026, to February 25, 2027. Imprime-Emploi accepted the extension offer.
- The added spending would bring the agreement’s stated total to $1,953,656.23, taxes included.
- Spending would come from the budgets of the city’s Service des ressources humaines et des communications (Human Resources and Communications Service), as needs arise.
What it means for you#
- Residents near upcoming work: The agreement covers printed and distributed information such as notices about work, letters sent before or after work, and invitations to public information meetings. It is not a new right to receive a notice.
- City staff: They would continue to assign work to Imprime-Emploi under the agreement, with spending authorized as needs arise.
- Residents generally: The decision does not itself change taxes, fees, or rules for residents.
Money#
The resolution authorizes an additional $671,469.74, taxes included; the decision summary gives a different figure for the extension.
- The resolution says the agreement’s total would rise to $1,953,656.23, taxes included.
- The decision summary says the extension’s maximum is $657,654.55 plus applicable taxes, and gives a net amount of $600,526.26. These figures do not match the resolution’s additional spending amount.
- The earlier agreement was awarded to Imprime-Emploi after a public call for tenders with one bid. The materials do not say whether that bid was the lowest compliant bid.
- City staff say there is no impact on the city’s financial framework. No separate cost estimate for staffing or administration is provided.
What is unclear#
- The materials give conflicting amounts for the extension; they do not explain the difference.
- The agreement allows two 12-month extensions, but this decision concerns only the first. The materials do not say whether the second will be used.
- The decision summary describes a target of delivery within 24 hours, or the same day when needed, but does not set out the consequences if that target is missed.
Case for#
- The extension would maintain a way to inform people about nearby work, including traffic disruptions and temporary water-service closures.
- The earlier agreement already covers these printing and distribution services, so extending it may avoid a break in service.
- City staff say using a framework agreement can improve efficiency and produce economies of scale.
Case against#
- The earlier public tender received one bid, so the materials show limited competition for the original agreement.
- The conflicting extension amounts make it harder to understand the spending being authorized.
- The materials do not explain how the city will assess the service’s quality or delivery times during the extension.