Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously adopted its position on a 24-month framework agreement with Gestion CDEDQ inc. (Compteurs d’eau du Québec) for water-meter interface units. The agreement would supply units on demand, up to $421,429.37, taxes included; the goal is to support remote readings for the city’s water meters. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The proposed agreement covers an estimated 2,460 R900 units. Prices are fixed for the 24-month term, and the city does not plan to increase the quantities.
- The city would assess the supplier’s performance.
- The resolution says spending would be charged to borough and central-service budgets as needs arise, through purchase orders and the required spending approvals.
- The agreement followed a public call for tenders. Gestion CDEDQ was the only bidder and its bid was compliant.
What it means for you#
- Residents and water-meter users: The units transmit meter readings remotely. City staff say delaying the agreement could risk missed readings and loss of water-use data for industrial, commercial and institutional buildings. The decision does not directly change water rates or household bills.
- City services and boroughs: They would pay for orders from their existing project or operating budgets as units are needed, subject to spending approvals.
Money#
The proposed maximum agreement amount is $421,429.37, taxes included; no new budget allocation is made by the agreement itself.
- Each order would draw on budgets already assigned to the requesting services or projects.
- City staff estimated the purchase at $480,825. The sole compliant bid was $59,395.64, or 12.35%, below that estimate.
What is unclear#
- The final decision on the agreement has not yet been made.
- The actual number of units ordered, and the total amount spent, will depend on needs during the 24-month term.
- The materials do not state how many staff hours or other administrative costs the agreement will require.
Case for#
- A framework agreement would let the city order units as needed, rather than buying them all at once.
- The bid was below the city’s estimate, and the proposed prices would stay fixed for the term.
- City staff say a delay could risk missed meter readings and loss of consumption data.
Case against#
- Only one bid was received, so the materials provide no comparison with another supplier’s price.
- The maximum amount is not the expected final spending: actual orders depend on future needs, which the materials do not specify.
- The resolution does not describe the process or criteria for evaluating the supplier’s performance.