City transfers six vehicle contracts to new supplier

Summary#

Montréal city council unanimously adopted a position to authorize the transfer of six framework agreements from Trois Diamants Autos (1987) ltée to Olivier Mascouche Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram inc. The transfer covers Chrysler parts and maintenance and repair services for the City’s light vehicles, on the same terms as the existing agreements. City staff say the goal is to maintain supply and service continuity; the agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.

  • The transfer covers one five-year parts agreement, with no renewal option, and five service agreements, each lasting five years with two optional 12-month extensions.
  • The new supplier would take over the agreements’ rights and obligations. Trois Diamants Autos is expected to cease operations.
  • The original agreements followed public calls for tenders: two bids for the parts agreement and five for the service agreements. The materials do not say whether either award was the lowest compliant bid.

What it means for you#

  • City departments and boroughs: The agreements can continue under the new supplier, on their existing terms. Orders remain subject to credit approval.
  • Residents and taxpayers: The decision does not create a new service or change residents’ direct rights or obligations. It changes the supplier for existing City purchasing agreements.
  • Potential suppliers: The decision transfers the agreements rather than awarding new ones through a call for tenders.

Money#

The agreements’ estimated remaining value is approximately $17,111,025.05, taxes included; the transfer itself has no separate cost estimate in the materials.

  • The six agreements’ total estimated value is $17,605,895.43, taxes included.
  • The City has not set aside a budget amount for the agreements. Purchases will be made as needed, and each purchase order must receive credit approval.
  • City staff say the transfer has no negative budget or operational impact because the terms remain unchanged.

What is unclear#

  • The materials do not give a separate cost for processing or overseeing the transfer.
  • They do not explain what assessment of the new supplier’s capacity was done beyond checking that it was not listed on the public-contract ineligibility register or the City’s unsatisfactory-supplier list.
  • The materials do not say whether the agglomeration council will approve the transfer.

Case for#

  • City staff say the transfer would help keep parts supply and vehicle repair services going without changing the agreements’ terms.
  • The original tender documents allowed a transfer if the City agreed. The new supplier has accepted responsibility for the existing obligations.
  • Keeping the agreements in place may avoid interrupting the City’s vehicle maintenance arrangements.

Case against#

  • The transfer changes the supplier without a new call for tenders, so other suppliers will not compete for these remaining agreements.
  • The materials do not detail how the City assessed the new supplier’s ability to deliver the parts and services, beyond the two registry checks.
  • The remaining value is substantial, and actual purchases will depend on City orders; the materials do not forecast how much of that value will be spent.