City ends PPE bag contract, opens new bid

Summary#

Montréal city council unanimously adopted a position to terminate its three-year framework agreement with Les Emballages Carrousel inc. for plastic bags used to bag the Montréal Fire Department’s personal protective equipment. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.

  • The agreement was estimated at $545,740.34, taxes included. It followed a public call for tenders that received one compliant bid.
  • City staff say the supplier told the City it could not honour the agreed prices and proposed supplying bags without the required printing. The Fire Department rejected that proposal because it did not meet the tender specifications.
  • If termination is approved, the City plans to launch a new open procurement process.

What it means for you#

  • Fire Department and City procurement staff: The current agreement is not terminated by this city council decision alone. If the agglomeration council approves the termination, the City plans to seek a new supplier.
  • Residents: The decision does not directly change fire services or residents’ rights. The materials do not say how the Fire Department will obtain bags in the meantime.

Money#

The agreement was estimated at $545,740.34, taxes included; City staff say termination itself will cost the City nothing because no purchases were made under it.

  • City staff say the City will keep the supplier’s $9,443.81 bid security under the tender rules.
  • The cost of any replacement agreement is not stated.

What is unclear#

  • The materials do not give a timeline for the new procurement or say how the Fire Department will obtain bags before a replacement agreement is in place.
  • They do not state the expected cost of a replacement agreement.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for termination is that the supplier said it could not meet its prices and offered a change that did not meet the tender specifications.
  • The City can seek a new supplier through an open procurement process instead of changing a key requirement of the existing agreement.

Case against#

  • One concern is that ending the agreement could leave a gap in supply; the materials do not describe interim arrangements or give a timeline for replacement.
  • The supplier cited rising raw-material costs, and the cost of a new agreement is unknown.