Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously adopted a position to award 9415-1966 Québec inc. a contract to distribute and deliver food to people held in SPVM detention centres and Montréal municipal court detention. The proposed contract runs for three years from May 1, 2026, with an option to extend it by 12 months, for a total of $451,000.94, taxes included. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The contract was put out to public tender. Three compliant bids were received, and 9415-1966 Québec inc. was the lowest compliant bidder.
- The contract covers food distribution and delivery to people detained by the SPVM, including those held at the municipal court.
- The stated goal is to provide food to detained people, in line with the duty city staff say the SPVM already has.
What it means for you#
- People detained by the SPVM: The contract would provide food distribution and delivery at SPVM detention centres and municipal court detention. The decision does not create a new service or change detainees’ rights.
- The agglomeration: It would pay the full contract cost from its operating budget, according to city staff.
- The public: The decision does not impose a new tax or fee.
Money#
The proposed contract is for up to $451,000.94, taxes included.
- The contract is for three years, with an option to extend it by 12 months.
- City staff say the expense is fully paid by the agglomeration and budgeted as an operating expense; they report no impact on the City of Montréal’s financial framework.
- The winning bid was $8,899.06, or 1.93%, below the city’s estimate. It was $136,722.52 lower than the second-lowest compliant bid.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not say whether the $451,000.94 total includes the possible 12-month extension.
- The quantities in the tender were estimates for comparing bids, not guaranteed amounts. The materials do not detail how actual quantities or spending may differ.
- The materials do not describe how meal quality or delivery performance will be monitored during the contract.
Case for#
- The lowest compliant bid was close to the city’s estimate and substantially below the next-lowest bid.
- A new contract would continue food delivery for detained people. City staff say the SPVM has a duty to provide adequate meals.
Case against#
- The estimated quantities are not guaranteed, so the materials leave uncertainty about the volume of food required over the contract.
- The materials do not explain how the city will check meal quality and delivery performance, or how it will respond if the service falls short.