Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously set the city’s position for the agglomeration council: terminate Canadian Bearings ltd.’s contract for lot 3 of the protective-equipment supply. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting. City staff say the goal is to correct an award made after a compliant bid was wrongly treated as non-compliant.
- The contract covers helmets, helmet accessories, visors and hearing protection, under a 36-month framework agreement (an agreement for supplies ordered as needed).
- City staff say a different bidder had offered a compliant item and should have received the lot 3 contract as the lowest compliant bidder.
- If the contract is terminated, city staff plan to issue a new public call for tenders for those items.
What it means for you#
- Canadian Bearings ltd.: Its lot 3 contract would be terminated if the agglomeration council agrees with the city’s position.
- City employees: The equipment is mainly intended to protect employees at work. The decision does not itself provide equipment or change workplace rules; city staff plan a new tender.
- Other suppliers: The city plans to reopen competition for lot 3, but the materials do not name a future supplier.
Money#
City staff say the termination would not require a payment by the City because no purchases have been made under this contract.
- The earlier award covered agreements with Canadian Bearings ltd. and Acklands-Grainger inc., with an estimated combined amount of $964,946.32, taxes included. The materials do not give the amount for lot 3 alone.
- No estimate is provided for the new contract or the cost of running another tender.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not give the timing for the new tender or say how supply will be handled in the meantime.
- They do not name the bidder whose item was initially judged non-compliant.
- They do not give a separate value for Canadian Bearings ltd.’s lot 3 contract.
Case for#
- Correcting the award would align the result with the tender rules, according to city staff: they say the lowest compliant bidder should have received the contract.
- A new tender would let the City seek a supplier for the listed equipment categories after ending the disputed award.
Case against#
- Ending the contract and holding a new tender could delay access to these supplies; the materials do not explain how the City will manage any gap.
- The materials do not estimate the cost or timing of the replacement contract.