Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously awarded 9193-6690 Québec inc. (Référence Média) a contract to prepare and distribute a daily press review. City staff say it is meant to support the city’s media monitoring and communications.
- The public call for tenders received one bid. The company met the pre-set scoring threshold.
- The contract is for 36 months and includes an option to extend for 12 months. The stated total is $209,013.51, taxes included.
- The review covers news from Montréal daily newspapers and media websites, for 170 users. It also allows up to 10 themed reviews a year and up to 10 radio or TV excerpts a year, bought individually.
- The contractor must follow the city’s three existing agreements with copyright holders for electronic distribution of articles and reports.
What it means for you#
- City staff: The Direction des affaires publiques et du protocole will have the daily press-review service for its users. City staff say it helps inform the public about city decisions, work and services.
- Residents: The decision does not directly change your rights, services, taxes or access to city information.
Money#
The city will pay up to $209,013.51, taxes included; the city says the cost is covered by the central city’s existing budget for public affairs and protocol.
- The bid was $10,855.83, or 4.93%, below the city’s estimate.
- The materials do not say whether the stated total includes any spending during the 12-month extension option.
What is unclear#
- The resolution describes 36 months with a 12-month extension option, while the staff summary says the contract runs from December 1, 2025, to November 30, 2028. The materials do not explain the option’s timing or whether its cost is included in the stated total.
- The materials do not give the price for individual radio or TV excerpts, or explain how the extension option would be exercised.
Case for#
- City staff say the service supports media monitoring and communications about city decisions, work and services.
- The sole bidder met the required score, and its price was below the city’s estimate.
Case against#
- Only one company bid, although five obtained the tender documents. The materials do not show how the price compares with other available offers.
- The contract includes an extension option, but its cost and terms are not clear in the supplied materials.