Summary#
On 25 August 2026, Montréal City Council unanimously adopted a decision extending its authority over contractor and supplier performance evaluations across the boroughs until 22 September 2031. The decision continues a declaration of competence under the City of Montréal Charter; it does not amend the law. City staff say the goal is to keep evaluations consistent across the city.
- The extension covers the evaluation powers set out in the Loi sur les contrats des organismes municipaux (Municipal Contracts Act).
- It excludes the power to refuse a contractor’s or supplier’s bid if it is the lowest compliant bid and that firm received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation in the previous two years.
- City staff say the Service de l’approvisionnement (Procurement Department) implements the evaluation system, and the executive committee is the only body that approves unsatisfactory evaluations.
What it means for you#
- Contractors and suppliers: The citywide system for evaluating your performance continues. The decision does not itself create a new ban on bidding or change the exception for a lowest compliant bid described above.
- Boroughs and city departments: Performance-evaluation powers remain centralized under City Council’s declaration, rather than being exercised separately by different city and borough bodies.
- Residents: The decision does not directly change residents’ rights, services, taxes, or fees.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The decision gives no spending amount or new staffing requirement.
What is unclear#
- The resolution does not spell out evaluation criteria, timelines, or how contractors and suppliers can challenge an evaluation.
- City staff say the law allows more discretion about when evaluations happen, but that evaluations are still being done at the end of contracts under current city rules. The materials do not say whether that practice will change.
- The materials do not explain how the excluded bid-refusal power will be handled alongside the centralized evaluation powers.
Case for#
- City staff say a single citywide process can make evaluations more consistent across boroughs and departments.
- Staff say centralizing approval of unsatisfactory evaluations and keeping one shared list can help the city consider past performance consistently when awarding contracts.
Case against#
- Centralizing authority may reduce borough councils’ direct role in contractor and supplier evaluations; the materials do not explain how borough input is maintained.
- The decision extends the arrangement for five years but does not itself set out the detailed evaluation rules or challenge process.