Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously adopted its position on renewing existing framework agreements with UAP inc. (Traction Anjou et St-Laurent) and Pièces d’Autos Probec (Div Entrepôt de Montréal 1470 inc.). It supports a 12-month extension for supplying electrical and electronic parts for the City’s vehicle and equipment repairs, plus related spending and a contingency amount. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The extensions cover lots 2 and 3 for UAP and lot 4 for Pièces d’Autos Probec, under the same terms as the existing agreements.
- The City’s position authorizes $320,470.68 for purchases and $48,070.60 for contingencies, both taxes included.
- Parts would be bought as needed; the agreements do not require the City to buy a minimum or all listed quantities.
What it means for you#
- City vehicle repair service: If the agglomeration council approves the extension, the Service du matériel roulant et des ateliers can continue ordering parts from these suppliers for 12 months.
- Residents and taxpayers: The decision does not directly change a public service, tax, fee, or individual benefit. City staff say the expense would be paid from the service’s operating budget, with 5.7% borne by the agglomeration.
- Suppliers: The agreements continue with the named firms. Existing delivery terms include urgent orders within four hours; late delivery can lead to a penalty of 1% of the goods’ value, excluding taxes, for each day of delay.
Money#
The council’s position authorizes $320,470.68 in spending plus $48,070.60 for contingencies, taxes included; the materials contain small arithmetic inconsistencies in the totals.
- City staff say the agreements are paid through the vehicle service’s operating budget, and purchases require credit approval against the agreements.
- The decision title gives the added amount as $368,541.29 and the revised total as $1,906,484.91. But the two amounts authorized in the resolution add to $368,541.28. The lot-by-lot table also lists a total for lot 4 that does not match its stated initial amount plus extension amount.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not explain the one-cent difference between the resolution’s spending and contingency amounts and the total in the title.
- The lot 4 total in the financial table appears inconsistent with its other figures; the materials do not resolve the discrepancy.
- Actual purchases and final costs are uncertain because the City orders parts as needed and has no minimum-purchase commitment.
Case for#
- City staff say the extension would maintain access to parts needed for vehicle repairs and help ensure fast service.
- Staff say it allows the City to use prices obtained through the original public call for tenders and avoid buying through a negotiated contract instead.
- The extension is an option in the existing agreements, with the same terms and conditions.
Case against#
- A possible trade-off is continuing with the current suppliers for another year rather than seeking new bids now.
- The City’s actual spending is uncertain because quantities depend on future needs, while the extension includes a contingency allowance.