Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously approved its position in favour of concluding framework agreements for rustproofing city vehicles. The agreements would run for 24 months, with an option to renew for 12 months; the agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- Lallier Automobile (P.A.T.) inc. / Krown Montréal-Est would serve the eastern region (lot 1), for up to $128,079.85, taxes included, before contingencies.
- 9183-8565 Québec inc. / Krown St-Jérôme would serve the central and southern regions (lots 2 and 4), for up to $401,862.92, taxes included, before contingencies.
- The city would authorize a further $105,988.55, taxes included, for contingencies (unforeseen extra work or supplies). The decision says the agreements are for services ordered as needed; the city does not promise to order all estimated quantities.
- The city would evaluate both suppliers’ performance. The agreements would end after 24 months or when their allocated budgets are used up, whichever comes first. Renewal requires written notice from the city and the supplier’s consent.
What it means for you#
- City fleet and services: The agreements cover rustproofing light and heavy vehicles, with service areas divided by region. City staff say the service may help extend the life of the vehicle fleet.
- Taxpayers: The city would charge spending to the budgets of its rolling stock and workshops service, as orders are needed. City staff say each purchase order still needs approval.
- Residents: The decision does not directly change residents’ taxes, rights, or access to city services.
Money#
The stated estimated agreement amount is $635,931.33, taxes included.
- The two pre-contingency amounts total $529,942.77; the authorized contingency budget is $105,988.55. Together these figures add to $635,931.32—one cent less than the stated estimate.
- City staff report one compliant bid for each of lots 1, 2 and 4. The suppliers were the lowest compliant bidders for those lots.
- For the lots in this decision, staff say the bid amounts before contingencies were about 50% above the city’s estimates. They attribute the gap to underestimating extra services, including vehicle pickup and delivery and cleaning vehicle cabins.
What is unclear#
- The decision does not state how many vehicles will actually be serviced or how much of the authorized amount will be spent.
- It does not say whether the 12-month renewal option will be used. Prices may be adjusted annually under the agreement’s consumer-price-index formula.
- The decision’s stated total differs by one cent from the sum of its listed agreement amounts and contingency budget.
Case for#
- The agreements would give the city suppliers for rustproofing light and heavy vehicles in three regions.
- City staff say the service is intended to extend the life of the city’s vehicle fleet.
- The city divided the work by region to be closer to suppliers and reduce vehicle travel time, according to staff.
Case against#
- Only one compliant bid was received for each of these three lots, limiting price competition.
- The bids before contingencies were about 50% above the city’s estimates. Staff explain the gap, but the estimates were not accurate enough to predict the contract amounts.
- The city does not commit to ordering all estimated quantities, so the amount ultimately spent is uncertain.