Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously adopted a position supporting a 36-month framework agreement with Bureau Veritas Canada (2019) inc. for on-demand water-sample analysis. The decision sets the city’s position for the agglomeration council, which makes the final decision at a later meeting. The file title includes an option to extend the agreement by 12 months; the resolution does not give details about that option.
- The agreement would be available to all City of Montréal units. The resolution authorizes a maximum of $1,237,676.84, taxes included, plus $123,767.68, taxes included, for changes in quantities. The total estimated amount is $1,361,444.52, taxes included.
- The city would award the agreement through public call for tenders 25-21210 to Bureau Veritas, the lowest compliant bidder among three bids.
- The resolution requires an evaluation of Bureau Veritas’s performance and says spending is to come from borough and corporate-service budgets as needs arise.
What it means for you#
- City departments and boroughs: They could order laboratory analysis as needed. The agreement does not commit the city to order any particular quantity.
- Residents and businesses: The decision does not directly change residents’ rights, fees, or rules for businesses. It concerns the city’s purchase of testing services.
- Status: City council has set its position; the agreement is not yet finally approved by the agglomeration council.
Money#
The agreement is estimated at $1,361,444.52, taxes included, over 36 months, including the amount set aside for quantity changes.
- The base agreement is capped at $1,237,676.84, taxes included; $123,767.68, taxes included, is authorized for possible changes in quantities.
- City staff say spending will be authorized as orders are placed and paid from budgets already assigned to the requesting units. The decision does not provide an estimate of actual orders or spending.
- Bureau Veritas’s total bid, including the quantity-change amount, was 13.5% below the city’s estimate. The next-lowest bid was 34.5% higher than Bureau Veritas’s.
What is unclear#
- The resolution does not state the terms for using the 12-month extension option named in the file title.
- Actual spending depends on orders placed; the city is not committed to buying stated quantities.
- The materials do not say how the agreement’s work will be divided among city units.
Case for#
- Bureau Veritas was the lowest compliant bidder, and its bid was below the city’s estimate.
- City staff say one agreement can make purchasing easier and more consistent than negotiating each order separately.
- The agreement covers analysis on demand, so the city need not commit to fixed quantities.
Case against#
- The total estimated amount is not a guaranteed ceiling on every possible future cost: the resolution authorizes the stated amount, while actual orders and use may vary.
- The file gives no forecast of actual orders or spending, so the eventual cost to each budget is unclear.