City approves motion to extend court notices printing

Summary#

Montréal city council unanimously adopted a position supporting a 12-month extension of the contract with 9169-9835 Québec inc. (Publications 9417) for printing, inserting, mailing and supplying stationery for municipal court notices. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.

  • The proposed extension would run from March 8, 2026, to March 7, 2027, under an option in the existing contract.
  • The city council’s position is to approve an additional $252,424.49, taxes included, bringing the contract total to $744,575.95, taxes included.
  • The 2024 contract was awarded to the lowest compliant bidder after a public call for tenders. The number of bids for that tender is not given in these materials.

What it means for you#

  • People receiving municipal court notices: The extension would keep printing and mailing services in place. City staff say refusing or delaying it could stop notices from being sent and disrupt court hearings and proceedings. That is staff’s stated assessment, not a guaranteed outcome.
  • Taxpayers and municipalities in the agglomeration: The expense is fully borne by the agglomeration because it relates to municipal court activities.
  • The city: If approved, it would continue using the same supplier for another year, with prices adjusted under the contract’s consumer price index (CPI) formula.

Money#

The estimated cost of the 12-month extension is $252,424.49, taxes included ($230,497.20 net of tax rebates).

  • The estimate is based on expected quantities; actual use may differ.
  • The contract’s CPI adjustment is 2.58%, adding $6,348.76 compared with the initial annual value of $246,075.73.
  • City staff say the expense is covered by the legal affairs department’s annual budget base and has no impact on the City of Montréal’s financial framework.

What is unclear#

  • The materials do not say how many bids were received for the 2024 contract.
  • Actual quantities, and therefore the final amount spent, may differ from the estimate.

Case for#

  • The extension uses an option already included in the public tender and keeps the existing service in place.
  • City staff say the court is satisfied with the supplier’s work. The supplier has also confirmed interest in extending the contract.
  • The tender awarded the existing contract to the lowest compliant bidder.

Case against#

  • The extension is estimated at $252,424.49, and the final cost may vary with actual quantities.
  • The materials do not compare the extension’s cost with prices from other suppliers. The option is part of the existing contract, but the materials do not show whether other providers were considered for this extension.