Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously adopted a position in favour of a 24-month framework agreement with Gestion CDEDQ inc. (Compteurs d'eau du Québec) for water meters for the city’s drinking-water network. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The proposed agreement covers supply, on request, of meters without mechanical parts, 50 to 300 millimetres in diameter, for lot 1. The maximum amount is $341,047.71, taxes included.
- The supplier was the only bidder whose offer complied with the requirements. The agreement would have fixed prices for 24 months and no contingency.
- The meters are for non-residential use. City staff’s estimated quantities total 153 meters, in sizes from 50 to 200 millimetres.
- Under the resolution, the City would evaluate the supplier’s performance and charge spending to borough and central-service budgets as needs arise.
What it means for you#
- City services and boroughs: If the agreement proceeds, they could order meters as needed, up to the agreement’s maximum.
- Non-residential building operators: The meters are intended for non-residential use, but the decision does not set out an application or installation process for building operators.
- Residents: The decision does not change household water rates or require households to install meters.
Money#
The proposed maximum is $341,047.71, taxes included; actual spending would depend on orders.
- No contingency is included. Prices would stay fixed for the 24-month term.
- City staff’s estimate was $998,145.69, or 65.83% above the sole compliant bid. Staff say the estimate averaged prices for two meter technologies, and that the ultrasonic meters offered cost less than the estimate assumed.
- The decision summary says orders would use budgets already allocated to projects or to the requesting units.
What is unclear#
- The final decision on the agreement has not yet been made by the agglomeration council.
- The listed estimated quantities cover sizes from 50 to 200 millimetres, while the agreement description covers meters up to 300 millimetres. The materials do not explain this difference.
- The materials do not state how many meters will actually be ordered or how spending will be divided among boroughs and city services.
Case for#
- City staff say delaying the agreement could disrupt meter installation and lead to lost water-use data from industrial, commercial and institutional buildings.
- A 24-month agreement with fixed prices could provide a way to order meters as needs arise, without exceeding the stated maximum.
- Staff say the bid price is plausible because the estimate combined prices for two technologies, including a more expensive one.
Case against#
- Only one bidder submitted a compliant offer, so the City had no competing compliant bid for this lot to compare.
- The large gap between the City’s estimate and the bid makes the price comparison harder to judge, even though staff explain how the estimate may have been high.
- The materials do not show how many meters the City expects to buy or how much of the maximum amount it expects to spend.