Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously adopted an orientation to award a five-year framework agreement to Globocam (Anjou) inc. for genuine Freightliner parts. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting. The stated goal is to support repairs and maintenance of the city’s vehicles.
- The agreement would let the city order parts as needed, up to $1,540,665, taxes included.
- The city’s orientation also authorizes $308,133, taxes included, for contingencies, bringing the total to $1,848,798.
- The agreement could be extended for two additional 12-month periods, if both parties agree.
- Globocam was the only bidder and its bid was compliant. The city would evaluate its performance.
What it means for you#
- City vehicle workshops: All Montréal city mechanical workshops could order the parts under the agreement. The city would not have to order the forecast quantities in full.
- Globocam (Anjou) inc.: The company would supply parts on request at a 33% discount from the manufacturer’s listed prices. The city may audit prices and request supporting documents.
- Residents: The decision does not directly change residents’ rights, fees or services. It concerns parts for the city’s vehicle fleet.
Money#
The proposed agreement has a total estimated amount of $1,848,798, taxes included, including contingencies.
- The purchase amount is capped at $1,540,665; the separate contingency provision is $308,133. Orders would be paid from existing operating budgets as needs arise.
- The city is not committed to buy all forecast quantities, so actual spending may be lower. The materials do not give a separate cost estimate for the possible extensions.
What is unclear#
- The exact amount the city will spend depends on orders and possible contingencies; the forecast quantities are not a commitment to purchase.
- The materials do not set out how the performance evaluation will be conducted or what would follow from its results.
- The manufacturer’s listed prices may change. The materials describe the discount and some price adjustments, but do not give future unit prices.
Case for#
- City staff say an earlier supplier could not meet the contract’s requirements, so the city sought a replacement agreement.
- The sole bid was compliant and was 1.47% below the city’s latest estimate.
- A parts agreement could help the city maintain and repair its vehicles, while audits and a performance evaluation provide checks on the supplier.
Case against#
- Only one compliant bid was received, so there was little competition to test the price.
- The total includes a 20% contingency, and the city’s actual spending is uncertain because it orders parts only as needed.
- Because prices are tied to the manufacturer’s list prices, the discount does not fix the dollar price of parts for the full agreement period.