Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously adopted a position supporting the first 12-month extension of its framework agreement with Uni-Select inc. for filters for city vehicles and equipment. It also supported authorizing $929,920.45, taxes included, for the extension, including a contingency budget; the decision summary says the agreement total would rise to $1,741,384.43, taxes included. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The extension would run from August 22, 2026, to August 21, 2027. The original agreement had two possible 12-month extensions.
- The supported spending consists of $774,933.71 for filters and $154,986.74 for contingencies.
- The original agreement followed public call for tenders 24-20406, which had three bidders. The supplied summary identifies Uni-Select as the lowest compliant bidder for lot 2; it does not say this about every lot.
What it means for you#
- City vehicle and equipment services: If the agglomeration council approves the position, the City could continue buying filters from Uni-Select under the agreement for another year, as needed.
- Residents and taxpayers: This is a purchasing decision, not a new service or a direct change to residents’ rights or fees. The costs are assigned to the City’s rolling-stock and workshops service budget; the summary says required credits were considered in the administration expense rate charged to the agglomeration budget.
Money#
The supported amount is $929,920.45, taxes included, including a 20% contingency provision.
- Purchases would be made as needs arise, with each purchase order requiring credit approval under the agreement.
- The agreement allows prices to vary under its terms, including possible increases based on the Montréal consumer price index; the City can also benefit from a price decrease.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not give a forecast of actual purchases during the extension or say how much of the contingency is expected to be used.
- They do not compare the extension’s expected prices with current alternatives, beyond noting the original tender and its bidders.
Case for#
- City staff say the extension would keep filter supplies available for vehicle maintenance and support the service’s operations.
- Staff also point to the prices obtained through the tender, the supplier’s service quality, and the value of continuing grouped purchasing.
Case against#
- The extension allows for price changes under the agreement, and the materials do not estimate how those changes could affect the final spending.
- The contingency adds $154,986.74 to the authorized amount. The materials do not explain what specific unexpected costs it is meant to cover.